Analyzing Leadership Styles of Incident Commanders

Dissertation

Submitted to Northcentral University

Graduate Faculty of the School of Business and Technology Management in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

by

Jeffrey C. Fox

Prescott Valley, Arizona August 30, 2009

Copyright 2009

Jeffrey C. Fox

APPROVAL

Analyzing Leadership Styles of Incident Commanders

by

Jeffrey C. Fox

Approved by: _Olin O. Oedekoven, Ph.D._________________________ ________________ Chair: (Type name and degree) Date Member: Yvonne Doll, Ph.D. Member: Lionel Rawlins, Ph.D. Certified by: _______________________________________________ ________________ School Chair (Lynn Payne, Ph.D.) Date

iv

ABSTRACT

In this mixed methods study, the prevalence of transformational, transactional,

and laissez-faire leadership styles among incident commanders during incidents

that utilized a unified command (UC) was examined, and differences between

disciplines in leadership styles were investigated. The problem addressed was

that it is currently unknown whether there is a dominant leadership style

associated with incident commanders during an incident. The problem this

creates is that it cannot be determined if a UC is affected positively or negatively

by different or specific leadership styles[0]. The focal events of interest in this

study were fatal crashes involving large commercial vehicles in Virginia during

2006 that utilized a UC/team response. The design for studying the relationships

encompassed in this research was purposively selected, multi-grouped, and non-

experimental. Thirteen agencies with emergency response roles participated in

this study. Data were collected from incident commanders representing six police

agencies, six fire agencies, and one transportation agency. These agencies were

dispersed geographically across the state. The Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) 5X-short was used to assess the frequency of leadership

styles. Sixty MLQ 5X-short surveys were sent to incident commanders who

indicated a willingness to participate as follows: 13 fire/EMS commanders, 41

police commanders, and six transportation commanders. Thirty-nine (62%) of the

surveys were completed. Fire/EMS dominant style was Individualized

Consideration (M = 3.25, SD = 0.58). Police dominant style was Individualized

Consideration (M = 2.88, SD = 0.60). Transportation dominant style was

v

Contingent Reward (M = 3.17, SD = 0.14). The least prominent style among all

disciplines was Laissez-faire. Fire/EMS utilized more Inspirational Motivation

than police and transportation commanders. Police utilized less Inspirational

Motivation and Intellectual Stimulation than fire/EMS and transportation

commanders. Transportation utilized more Contingent Reward and Management

by Exception than fire/EMS and police commanders. The null hypothesis was

rejected for each hypothesis. Each hypothesis stated commanders from one

discipline used a different leadership style than their counterparts. No

commander rated team performance below acceptable. Eighty-three percent

rated team performance as good or very good. Future studies should focus on

urban versus rural, supervisor versus non-supervisor, and paid versus volunteer

fire regarding leadership style and performance.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this research would not have been possible without the

support, patience, and love of my wife, Pam, and daughter, Holly. Without them, I

could not have accomplished this work. Most important I owe any success I have

had in my life and with this research to God. In God, all things are possible.

Special thanks are owed to my dissertation committee, including Dr.

Yvonne Doll and Dr. Lionel Rawlings, for their insights and guidance offered

throughout the program. I would like to thank Dr. Olin Oedekoven, my

dissertation chair, for his excellent leadership throughout the entire process.

I am grateful to all those within the fire/emergency medical service, police,

and transportation communities within the Commonwealth of Virginia who

assisted me in the gathering of data and their willingness to participate in the

research. Further, I am grateful for their tireless, dedicated, and honorable

service.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................. ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1

Background .....................................................................................................2 Problem Statement ..........................................................................................4 Purpose ......................................................................................................... 5 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................6 Research Questions ........................................................................................8 Hypotheses......................................................................................................8 Nature of the Study........................................................................................10 Significance of the Study ...............................................................................11 Definitions......................................................................................................12 Summary .......................................................................................................13

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................15

Background ...................................................................................................15 Understanding Emergency and Incident Management .......... .......................20 Leadership Examined ................................................... ........ .......................25 Leader/Follower Interaction .......................................... ........ .......................37 Organizational Culture ........................................................... .......................40 Unified Command and Teams ...................................... ........ .......................43 Team Leadership.......................................................... ........ .......................45 Police Culture and Leadership............................................... .......................46 Theory Examination...................................................... ........ .......................47 Path-goal Theory .......................................................... ........ .......................47 Situational Leadership Theory ...................................... ........ .......................50 Contingency Theory...................................................... ........ .......................52 Transformational Leadership Theory ............................ ........ .......................54 Leader-Member Exchange Theory ............................... ........ .......................59 Multiple-Linkage Theory ............................................... ........ .......................61 Leadership Survey Instruments .................................... ........ .......................62 Quantitative Instruments............................................... ........ .......................62 Qualitative Instruments ................................................. ........ .......................64 Qualitative Versus Quantitative Methods and Other Methodological Issues..65 Leadership Model Summation ...................................... ........ .......................66 Summary .......................................................................................................68

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD..................................................................70

Research Methods and Design(s) .................................................................74 Participants ....................................................................................................76 Materials/Instruments ....................................................................................77 Operational Definition of Variables ................................................................80 Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis ....................................................81 Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations.........................85

viii

Ethical Assurances ........................................................................................86 Summary .......................................................................................................88

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS.....................................................................................90 Results...........................................................................................................90 Evaluation of Findings .................................................................................100 Summary .....................................................................................................125

CHAPTER 5:IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS127

Implications..................................................................................................132 Recommendations.......................................................................................144 Conclusions .................................................................................................146

REFERENCES..................................................................................................148 APPENDIXES ...................................................................................................162

Appendix A Initial Data Collection Interview Form .....................................163 Appendix B Informed Consent Form...........................................................165 Appendix C Cover Letter / Instructions .......................................................167 Appendix D Incident Commander Form of the Descriptive Index ...............169 Appendix E Multifactor Leadership Questionnaires (MLQ) .........................173

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Cross-Tabulation of Experience and Team Performance in Fire/EMS Leaders ..............................................................................................................93 Table 2 Cross-Tabulation Indicating Team Performance and Incident Difficulty in Fire/EMS Leaders ...............................................................................................94 Table 3 Cross-Tabulation of Experience and Team Performance in Police Leaders ..............................................................................................................95 Table 4 Cross-Tabulation Indicating Team Performance and Incident Difficulty in Police Leaders ....................................................................................................96 Table 5 Cross-Tabulation of Experience and Team Performance in Transportation Leaders .......................................................................................97 Table 6 Cross-Tabulation Indicating Team Performance and Incident Difficulty in Transportation Leaders .......................................................................................98 Table 7 Cross-Tabulation of Aggregated Experience and Team Performance in All Disciplines ......................................................................................................99 Table 8 Cross-Tabulation Indicating Aggregated Team Performance and Incident Difficulty in All Disciplines..................................................................................100 Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Fire/EMS Leadership Styles on the MLQ 5X- short ..................................................................................................................102 Table 10 Descriptive Statistics for Fire/EMS Leadership Outcomes on the MLQ 5X-short ............................................................................................................104 Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for Police Leadership Styles on the MLQ 5X- short ..................................................................................................................105

x

Table 12 Descriptive Statistics for Police Leadership Outcomes on the MLQ 5X- short ..................................................................................................................107 Table 13 Descriptive Statistics for Transportation Leadership Styles on the MLQ 5X-short ............................................................................................................108 Table 14 Descriptive Statistics for Transportation Leadership Outcomes on the MLQ 5X-short....................................................................................................109 Table 15 Descriptive Statistics for Aggregated Leadership Styles on the MLQ 5X- short ..................................................................................................................110 Table 16 Descriptive Statistics for Aggregated Leadership Outcomes on the MLQ 5X-short ............................................................................................................112 Table 17 Descriptive Table Indicating Weakest and Strongest (Dominant) Leadership Styles among Fire/EMS, Police, and Transportation Incident Commanders.....................................................................................................113 Table 18 Descriptive Table Indicating Dominant Leadership Outcome Among Fire/EMS, Police, and Transportation Incident Commanders ...........................114 Table 19 Independent Samples t Test Results for Fire/EMS Versus Police and Transportation Leadership Styles......................................................................115 Table 20 Independent Samples t Test Results for Fire/EMS Versus Police and Transportation Leadership Outcomes ...............................................................117 Table 21 Independent Samples t Test Results for Police Versus Fire/EMS and Transportation Leadership Styles......................................................................119 Table 22 Independent Samples t Test Results for Police Versus Fire/EMS and Transportation Leadership Outcomes ...............................................................121

xi

Table 23 Independent Samples t Test Results for Transportation Versus Police and Fire/EMS Leadership Styles.......................................................................123 Table 24 Independent Samples t Test Results for Transportation Versus Police and Fire/EMS Leadership Outcomes ................................................................125

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

According to Canton (2007) and Lindell, Prater, and Perry (2007), acts of

terrorism continue to grow more ominous with the possible use of chemical,

biological, or nuclear devices. Add catastrophic natural weather events that occur

every year and the need for a well-orchestrated response to all hazards remains

paramount. The leaders of first responders during an incident must practice

command, communication, cooperation, and coordination to maximize the

effectiveness and efficiency of any given response (Carlson, 1999).

According to Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, Ergin, Westerman, and Yeletaysi

(2006), between 1976 and 2004 there were 1,069 major disaster declarations in

the United States. In 1999 there were 50 major disasters declared in 38 states.

There is a substantial list of known and potential types of human-made and

natural disasters. Bridge collapses, pandemics, major traffic crashes, wildfires,

floods, ice storms, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, chemical spills, school

shootings, and any style terrorist attack provide a partial list of the types of

incidents those in the emergency response community respond to every day.

Failing to properly lead the response and recovery efforts to any one of these

events can cause cascading effects resulting in more loss of life, more injuries,

more loss of property, and economic loss (Bitto, 2007; Corbin, Vasconez, &

Helman, 2007; Howitt, 2004; Sapriel, 2003; Mitroff, 2004; Waugh & Streib, 2006;

Weiss, 2002).

The problem that was addressed using this mixed methodology study was

that it is currently unknown whether there is a dominant leadership style

2

associated with incident commanders during an incident. The problem this

creates is that it cannot be determined if a Unified Command (UC) is affected

positively or negatively by different or specific leadership styles[0].

Background

Governmental agency personnel respond to incidents, emergencies, and

disasters daily in the United States (Boin, Hart, Stern, & Sundelius, 2005;

Bourne, 2005). While the dynamics of each incident may differ, there is one

common thread: it will take decisive and appropriate leadership to resolve the

situation (Bitto, 2007; Bourne, 2005; Howitt, 2004; Mitroff, 2004). Lester (2007)

stated that it will take transformational leadership coupled with the National

Incident Management System (NIMS) to achieve success during all phases of an

emergency. Guidelines have been provided regarding how to prepare for and

respond to incidents in a uniform manner throughout the country (Bourne, 2005;

Hanneman, 2007; Perry, 2003). What appear to be lacking are guidelines on how

to lead during such incidents. Team or group leadership has been the subject of

much research (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murray, Jung, & Garger, 2003). What

remains to be examined in detail is individual, group, and/or team leadership

during a real world incident. Even in the limited number of studies completed

regarding team or group leadership, the focus has been on groups who have

been established and function in a less than hazardous environment (Avolio et

al., 2003; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Kearney & Gebert, 2009; King, 2002).

Canton (2007) stated prior to 9/11 the New York City fire and police

departments did not communicate with each other due to mutual animosity.

3

Technology played a role with internal communications for each agency as well

(U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004). Nicholson (2003) buttresses Canton’s

assertions. According to Nicholson, a police helicopter hovering near the twin

towers warned police personnel that the second tower was going to collapse very

soon. The warning included a call to evacuate the second building. This warning

was clearly captured on the police radio tapes 21 minutes before the second

tower collapsed. The firefighters in the second tower were never given this

admonition. The two agencies radio systems were not linked together. The police

and fire commanders never talked during the crises. Each barely coordinated

activities or shared information. Each agency set up its own command post and

neither provided a representative to the other’s command post for coordination

purposes. The National Incident Management System (NIMS) offers no guidance

as to what type of leadership model should be followed.

According to Buck, Trainor, and Agquirre (2006), the Incident Command

System (ICS), as set out in the NIMS, will not likely work as intended (Lester,

2007). The ICS provides a universal response model to all incidents; however, it

is recognized that ICS works best with firefighting organizations and has been

less successful with police, public health, and public work-style agencies. The fire

service actually created ICS and has used the system the longest. The fire

service has long worked in a team environment as opposed to police who

typically work and handle calls for service alone.

Transportation agency personnel have typically found themselves on the

periphery of emergency response and normally in an assist mode (Allred, 2004;

4

Buck, 2004; Buck et al., 2006; Cardwell & Cooney, 2000; Helman, 2004;

Reardon, 2005; Ruff, 2000; Walsh, Christen, Miller, Callsen, Cilluffo, &

Maniscalco, 2005; Weiss, 2002). Social relationships are essential to the success

of ICS (Hanneman, 2006; Walsh et al., 2005). Along with social relationships

come the styles and attributes of leadership (Avolio et al., 2003; Boin & Hart,

2003). Responses to incidents often have political elements. Hurricane Katrina is

cited as a prime example of the wrong combination of ICS preparedness,

leadership differences, and politics, which created inadequate decision-making

and a poor response (Cooper & Block, 2006; Dixon, 2006; Fisher, 2005; Garcia,

2006; Lester, 2007; Martin, 2007; Weiss, 2002).

Problem Statement

The problem that was addressed using the mixed methodology study was

that it is currently unknown whether there is a dominant leadership style

associated with incident commanders during an incident. The problem this

creates is that it cannot be determined if a UC is affected positively or negatively

by different or specific leadership styles[0]. Little research exists regarding the

cultures of fire/emergency medical services (EMS) or transportation/public works

cultures. After 9/11, much work was undertaken to improve teamwork,

interagency cooperation and coordination, and the concept of a unified approach

or command (U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004). Yet, as noted by Cooper

and Block (2006) the response to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina provided

little evidence that significant improvement had occurred. It is surmised that

leadership style plays a key role in the level of success of any endeavor

5

especially activities involving emergency response (Lester, 2007; Lester & Krejci,

2007; Murgallis, 2005). McCreight and Hagen (2007) stated that there is a dearth

of information regarding exactly how the UC/ICS structure will drastically improve

coordination and communication problems without jeopardizing effective crisis

management.

Hurricane Katrina provides an excellent example of inadequate use or

understanding of UC, yet the response to the twin towers on 9/11 provides even

a more telling example (Lester & Krejci, 2007; Waugh & Streib, 2006). Canton

(2007) stated prior to 9/11 the New York City fire and police departments did not

communicate with each other due to mutual animosity. The lack of cooperation,

communication, and coordination between the fire and police service on 9/11 are

not unique. Molino (2006) stated law-enforcement and other responders

disciplines have aggressively competed for priorities and resources during the

management of emergency incidents. Klann (2003) declared that a leader’s

influencing skills are critical during a crisis. Murgallis (2005) argued that team

confidence begins with those who lead the team. Klann stated leaders should

concentrate on three key influencing skills during a crisis: communication, clarity

of vision and values, and caring for others. According to Hunter (2006),

transformational leaders can transform emergencies into developmental

challenges by presenting crisis as intellectual stimulus to encourage followers to

seek thoughtful, creative, adaptive solutions to stressful conditions, instead of

hasty, defensive, or maladaptive ones.

Purpose

6

The purpose of the mixed methodology dissertation study was to examine

the prevalence of transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership

styles among incident commanders during major traffic crashes that utilized a UC

approach within the Commonwealth of Virginia. The disciplines that were

examined included fire/EMS, police, and transportation or public works

organizations. The incidents under examination involved large-scale tractor-

trailer crashes, which occurred on the public highways within the Commonwealth

of Virginia.

Theoretical Framework

According to Walsh et al. (2005), in early 2003, in an effort to improve the

nation’s domestic response capabilities, President George W. Bush promulgated

Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (HSPD-5). The members of the 9/11

Commission called for greater emphasis on Incident Management Systems (U.S.

Government Printing Office, 2004; Perry, 2003). According to Miller (2007) and

Walsh et al. (2005), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented

the NIMS. The NIMS provides numerous benefits such as the establishment of

standards for planning, training, and exercising; interoperability in

communications processes, procedures, and systems; equipment acquisition and

certification standards; and consistent organizational structures, processes, and

procedures. The NIMS requires the use of the ICS at the scene of any incident.

One of the many benefits of the NIMS is the premise that there is and can

be only one incident commander at the scene. If more than one agency

responds, and they have some legal or functional responsibility at the scene,

7

they become part of the hierarchy in the ICS (Bitto, 2007; Hanneman, 2007; Ruff,

2000; Walsh et al., 2005). Walsh et al. explained that each agency retains its

autonomy. Each agency still has its individual roles and responsibilities.

However, there must remain one single primary incident commander. In this

situation, the UC system is used. This process places the incident commander,

who has the most demanding or obvious immediate task to accomplish, in the

lead of the UC. There is no legal or binding document that requires the other

commanders to adhere to the decisions of any other incident commander.

Hence, cooperation and a team concept remain paramount (Annelli, 2006;

Herron, 2004; Jamieson, 2005; Lester, 2007; Molino, 2006; Perry, 2003; Ruff,

2000).

According to Oldham (2003), the first line supervisor sets the tone for his

or her unit. Traditional policing has relied on an authoritarian and bureaucratic

model, which has been reactionary in nature (Densten, 2003). According to

Meese and Ortmeier (2004), the typical police response has often been reactive

and bureaucratic and focused on methods and procedures with little ingenuity or

strategic thinking to affect results. Efficiency and management received more

attention than effectiveness and leadership. This mindset stymied creativity

(Bigley & Roberts, 2001; Torpman, 2004). Kappeler (1995) argued that

bureaucracies tend to be closed institutions which try to protect their members.

This has potential to create a recipe for conflict when collaborating with agencies

from other disciplines during incident response. Organizational culture is a

8

situational variable, which may influence the leader (King, 2002; Stewart & Manz,

1995; Torpman, 2004).

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The following research questions and hypotheses were used to guide the

mixed methods dissertation study:

RQ1: What was the dominant leadership style used during an incident

by the on-scene fire/EMS incident commanders?

RQ2: What was the dominant leadership style used during an incident

by the on-scene police incident commanders?

RQ3: What was the dominant leadership style used during an incident

by the on-scene transportation incident commanders?

Regarding Research Questions 4-6, comparative analysis was undertaken

for each discipline to clearly delineate results. Response rate were nominal from

two disciplines. The independent variable was the discipline and the independent

variable was the leadership style.

RQ4: What, if any, difference existed between the leadership styles of

the fire/EMS incident commander compared to commanders

from other disciplines during similar incidents?

H1o: Responding fire/EMS commanders will not use

different leadership styles than do commanders from

other disciplines.

9

H1a: Responding fire/EMS commanders will use

different leadership styles than do commanders from

other disciplines.

RQ5: What, if any, difference existed between the leadership styles of

the police incident commander compared to commanders from

other disciplines during similar incidents?

H2o: Responding police commanders will not use

different leadership styles than do commanders from

other disciplines.

H2a: Responding police commanders will use

different leadership styles than do commanders from

other disciplines.

RQ6: What, if any, difference existed between the leadership styles of

the transportation incident commander compared to commanders

from other disciplines during similar incidents?

H3o: Responding transportation/public works

commanders will not use different leadership styles

than do commanders from other disciplines.

H3a: Responding transportation/public works

commanders will use different leadership styles than

do commanders from other disciplines.

10

Nature of the Study

The mixed methodology research study was a non-experimental design.

The study did not have random assignment of people to groups. While it may not

be a strength, it was a necessity. The non-experimental design was necessary

due to the nature of the incidents being examined (Hagan, 2006).

Conceptualization of the study did not call for a stimulus hence there was no

need for either randomness or a control group. The design of this study

necessitated natural situations, which would have been difficult to simulate in an

artificial environment (Champion, 2006). This non-experimental design was not

artificial in nature, which could have hindered generalizability. A weakness of the

design was that there was no control group.

According to Collard (2002) and Miller (2006), there will be unique

circumstances for each situation such as the complexities and hazards involved in

the particular situation and the level of experience and expertise of the followers

involved. These variables were not examined. However, similar incidents were

chosen; all of which provided similar levels of complexity and stressors (Burkle &

Hayden, 2001).

Every attempt was made to select incidents with all necessary criteria,

which occurred within a one-year period. Data was collected through a preliminary

interview, a written survey, and use of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

5X-short. A weakness of the study may be the elapsed time from the incident to

the data collection from the leaders. Another concern was the ability to gather

enough responses from the subjects to make the data meaningful. Participation

11

was sought from all incident commanders within a given incident. Verifying or at

least obtaining follower perception of observed incident commanders would have

enhanced validity but data gathering was problematic.

Significance of the Study

The purpose of this mixed methodology dissertation study was to examine

the prevalence of transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership

styles among incident commanders during incidents that utilized a UC approach

within the Commonwealth of Virginia and investigate differences between

disciplines in leadership style. The disciplines that were investigated included

police, fire/EMS, and transportation or public works organizations. An

examination of IC leadership styles may provide guidance to future commanders

of incidents to increase the level of success during a crisis incident. This

research was descriptive and comparative in nature.

The data from the mixed methodology dissertation study provided

information regarding the prevalence of a particular type of leadership style

commonly used by commanders during incidents. A style pattern was found

within a single type responding discipline and across some disciplines.

Furthermore, data was derived that illustrates the use of one particular style over

another, or at least the uniform use of one style, that either enhances, detracts,

or has no effect on the success of a particular incident.

The findings of this research will be of interest to all types of responding

disciplines in that leadership styles was examined for prevalence and potential

effectiveness across and within disciplines. The findings will be of interest to

12

journals such as Police Chief, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Homeland Defense

Journal, Public Roads, Leadership Quarterly, Fire Chief, Fire Engineering,

Disaster Prevention and Management, and Security Management. Personnel at

all levels from the various disciplines represented read these journals. Training,

policy development, and planning initiatives are often derived from the

information found in these journals.

Definitions

The study used the following key terms:

Incident Command (IC). “The ICS position responsible for overall incident

management. This person establishes all strategic incident objectives and

ensures that those objectives are carried out effectively” (Walsh et al., 2005, p.

21).

Incident Command System (ICS). “A system for domestic incident

management that is based on an expandable, flexible structure and that uses

common terminology, positions, and incident facilities” (Walsh et al., 2005, p. 21).

Single Command Single command is, “A single Incident Commander has sole

responsibility for establishing incident objectives and strategies. The single

Incident Commander is directly responsible for ensuring that all functional area

activities are focused on accomplishing the management strategy” (Walsh et al.,

2005, p. 25).

National Incident Management System (NIMS). “The NIMS is the national

model for an incident management system that is applicable across jurisdictions

and disciplines and functional for all hazards” (Walsh et al., 2005, p. 10).

13

Unified Command (UC). Unified Command is, “The command structure in

which multiple individuals are cooperatively responsible for all strategic

objectives of the incident. It is typically used when an incident is within multiple

jurisdictions and/or is managed by multiple disciplines” (Walsh et al., 2005, p.

21). Also, “Joint determination of incident objectives, strategies, plans, and

priorities. Agencies/jurisdictions work together to achieve objectives and

strategies using organization resources. Joint determination of Section Chief

positions (as indicated by incident scope)” (Walsh et al., p. 25).

Summary

According to Walsh et al. (2005), NIMS is tied to grant funds from the

federal government. The Governor of Virginia has decided that NIMS will be the

model followed during an incident. It was important to determine where the NIMS

is in Virginia, if UC under the ICS works, is it being used, and finally what type of

leadership style is most prevalent and works best during an incident and within

the ICS. The leaders of first responders during an incident must practice

command (leadership and management), communication, cooperation, and

coordination to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of any given response

(e.g., Brown, 2005; Cardwell & Cooney, 2000; Reardon, 2005). Responders

deserve as much as those who have succumbed to whatever the incident has

wrought, be it a major traffic crash, a hurricane, or a terrorist attack. In a

catastrophic event such as Hurricane Katrina, there will be mistakes made and

delays will occur due to the sheer magnitude of the event. However, it became

14

apparent that NIMS and UC failed to function as prescribed during Hurricane

Katrina (Cooper & Block, 2006; Lester & Krejci, 2007; Molino, 2006).

In summation, this research was used to examine the various leadership

styles commonly used by incident commanders during incidents, which utilize a

UC approach within the Commonwealth of Virginia. Three commonly found

disciplines at incidents were examined and they included fire/EMS, police, and

transportation or public works organizations. Such an examination provides

guidance to future commanders of incidents to increase the level of success.

15

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter begins with a discussion of emergency and incident

management. The role and importance of ICS is discussed along with the role

leadership plays or should play. Likewise, the ramifications of not combining ICS,

UC, and leadership are illustrated. Organizational culture, police culture, and

leadership are examined. The literature states that police leadership is

bureaucratic in nature and does not lend itself to a UC as called for by NIMS and

ICS. Leadership, team leadership, and followership are examined as they relate

to ICS and UC.

The latter half of the literature review examines specific leadership

theories to include Path-Goal, Situational Leadership, Contingency,

Transformational Leadership, Leader-Member Exchange, and Multiple-Linkage.

The primary focus of each theory is discussed along with strengths and

weaknesses. Additionally, quantitative and qualitative instruments and

methodologies are examined. Finally, a summary discussion of leadership is

offered.

Background

Certain events in history create the impetus for reflection, growth, and

change. Change can be referred to as a paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts are not

always welcomed or accepted (Covey, 1992; Miller, 2007; Wise & Nader, 2002).

Often, the need for change in attitude or behavior preexisted the event.

September 11, 2001 (9/11) was one such paradigm-changing event (U.S.

Government Printing Office, 2004). Prior to 9/11, leaders of government agencies

16

at all levels operated within the confines of their own paradigms (U.S.

Government Printing Office, 2004). After 9/11, efforts were made to change all

aspects of homeland security including response strategies (U.S. Government

Printing Office, 2004; Wise & Nader, 2002). One result of these efforts was NIMS

and ICS (Walsh et al., 2005; e.g., Annelli, 2006; Herron, 2004; Jamieson, 2005).

According to the U.S. Government Printing Office (2004), bureaucratic

policies as well as organizational cultures created independent systems that

functioned within their own spheres of influence. Sometimes these agencies

cooperated out of necessity, sometimes not even then. This failure of

communication, cooperation, and coordination affected the various intelligence

communities. When evaluating the events leading up to 9/11 it was determined

that bureaucratic rules were instrumental in prohibiting the sharing of valuable

intelligence (Bitto, 2007; U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004).

Little research exists regarding the cultures of fire/emergency medical

services (EMS) or transportation/public works cultures. After 9/11, much work

was undertaken to improve teamwork, interagency cooperation and coordination,

and the concept of a unified approach or command (U.S. Government Printing

Office, 2004). Yet, as noted by Cooper and Block (2006) the response to the

aftermath of Hurricane Katrina provided little evidence that significant

improvement had occurred. It is surmised that leadership style plays a key role in

the level of success of any endeavor especially activities involving emergency

response (Lester, 2007; Lester & Krejci, 2007; Murgallis, 2005).

17

According to Canton (2007) and Lindell et al. (2007), acts of terrorism

continue to grow more ominous with the possible use of chemical, biological, or

nuclear devices. Add catastrophic natural weather events that occur every year

and the need for a well-orchestrated response to all hazards remains paramount.

The leaders of first responders during an incident must practice command,

communication, cooperation, and coordination to maximize the effectiveness and

efficiency of any given response (Carlson, 1999). First responders deserve and

need exemplary leadership during the response and recovery of any incident be

it a major traffic crash, a hurricane, or a terrorist attack. For all disaster scenarios

it is not if but when they will happen again. In a catastrophic event such as

Hurricane Katrina, mistakes were made and delays occurred due to the sheer

magnitude of the event. However, it became apparent that the NIMS and UC

failed to function as prescribed, even by those who mandated its use (Canton,

2007; Cooper & Block, 2006; Garcia, 2006; Lester, 2007; Lindell, et al., 2007;

Waugh & Streib, 2006).

McCreight and Hagen (2007) stated that there is a dearth of information

regarding exactly how the UC/ICS structure will drastically improve coordination

and communication problems without jeopardizing effective crisis management.

However, McCreight and Hagen recognized the need for a team approach

regarding risk assessment, response objectives, and prioritizing taskings. Gehl

(2004) stated that organizational habits run deep. Tradition and the desire not to

change or adapt hampers collaborative team progress. The cultural norms found

in police agencies do not support the process of forming teams for interagency

18

partnerships. Gehl (2004) stated this problem is not confined to policing. Cultural

barriers include but are not limited to issues of turf, secrecy, organizational

isolation, labor issues, resource issues, policy differences, and communication

protocols. The paramilitary structure found in policing is not conducive to multi-

agency teams in that it rewards individual effort more so than teamwork. Many of

these issues are not limited to policing and may not apply to all agencies (Bigley

& Roberts, 2001; Burkle & Hayden, 2001).

While the threat of another terrorist attack is imminent, there are other

incidents, which have occurred since 9/11 in the United States. The most prolific

disaster since 9/11 has been Hurricane Katrina (Cooper & Block, 2006). Cooper

and Block stated the local, state, and federal response to this disaster was

disjointed at best (Lester, 2007). Martin (2007) stated the most important lesson

learned from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was the need for strong

leadership. This one event has taught the first responder community that much

work still needs to be done. Likewise, incident management must take an all

hazards approach to preparedness (Canton, 2007).

Hurricane Katrina provides an excellent example of inadequate use or

understanding of UC, yet the response to the twin towers on 9/11 provides even

a more telling example (Lester & Krejci, 2007; Waugh & Streib, 2006). Canton

(2007) stated prior to 9/11 the New York City fire and police departments did not

communicate with each other due to mutual animosity. Technology played a role

with internal communications for each agency as well (U.S. Government Printing

Office, 2004). Nicholson (2003) buttresses Canton’s assertions. According to

19

Nicholson, a police helicopter hovering near the twin towers warned police

personnel that the second tower was going to collapse very soon. The warning

included a call to evacuate the second building. This warning was clearly

captured on the police radio tapes 21 minutes before the second tower

collapsed. The firefighters in the second tower were never given this admonition.

The two agencies radio systems were not linked together. The police and fire

commanders never talked during the crises. Each barely coordinated activities or

shared information. Each agency set up its own command post and neither

provided a representative to the other’s command post for coordination

purposes. These two agencies personnel worked for the same city every day.

Flin (1996) stated communications problems are the most common operational

issue in the majority of agencies and effect the responders’ ability to begin,

coordinate, and complete effective operations (Dixon, 2006). Phillips (1999)

pointed out that there have been occasions when leaders who could not agree

on issues such as who was in charge have found themselves literally wrestling

on the side of highways (Buntin, 2001).

The lack of cooperation, communication, and coordination between the

fire and police service on 9/11 are not unique. Molino (2006) stated law-

enforcement and other responders disciplines have aggressively competed for

priorities and resources during the management of emergency incidents.

Unfortunately, such competition, though maybe only subconscious, has

demonstrated weakness in the responding agencies abilities to efficiently

manage incidents (Canton, 2007; Pilant, 1996).

20

Understanding Emergency and Incident Management

According to Buck et al. (2006), the ICS, as set out in the NIMS, will not

likely work as intended. The ICS provides a universal response model to all

incidents; however, it is recognized that ICS works best with firefighting

organizations and is less successful with police, public health, and public work-

style agencies. The fire service actually created ICS, and has used it the longest

(Miller, 2007; Walsh et al., 2005). Social relationships are a key to the success of

ICS (Buntin, 2001; Cooper & Block, 2006; Hanneman, 2007; Walsh et al., 2005).

Along with social relationships come the styles and attributes of leadership

(Avolio et al., 2003). Responses to incidents often have political elements.

Hurricane Katrina is cited as a prime example of the wrong combination of ICS

preparedness, leadership differences, and politics, which created inadequate

decision-making and a poor response (Boin et al., 2005; Burkle & Hayden, 2001;

Garcia, 2006; Lester, 2007; Molino, 2006; Rosenthal, 2003).

Kemp (2004) stated there are four phases of emergency management that

include mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The NIMS is

applicable across all four stages. The ICS is mainly found to function within the

response and recovery stages. Kemp went on to state that ICS should not be

confused with mutual aid agreements. The ICS provides a structure or framework

within which to work. Mutual aid agreements cannot take the place of ICS or

NIMS in general. All emergencies are local in nature. Kemp went on to state that

local agencies who use the ICS have a functional chain of command, reduce the

possibility of duplication of services, and are overall more effective in the

21

response and recovery phases. Lastly, an all hazards approach must be adopted

by all agencies both public and private (Bullock et al., 2006; Lindell, et al., 2007;

Walsh et al., 2005; Wise & Nader, 2002).

Command, control, coordination, cooperation, and communications are

considered key elements to effective incident management (Brunacini, 1985;

Molino, 2006; Rosenthal, 2003; Wise & Nader, 2002). Molino (2006) described

the emergency response priorities, which are life safety, incident stabilization,

and property conservation (e.g., Brown, 2005; Brunacini, 1985; Reardon, 2005).

According to Molino (2006), and Flin (1996), on a small incident, there may be

one officer, one fire chief and several firefighters, one transportation supervisor

and workers, and one wrecker driver. Incident command could change several

times throughout the incident. Yet, there can be disagreements about who does

what and when. Individual personalities may play a role along with missions,

organizational cultures, past experiences with each other or each other’s

discipline, levels of experience, and leadership styles, among many other factors

(Allred, 2004). What was described here is the simplest of incidents. Extrapolate

this into a Washington D. C. sniper style attack or Pentagon attack by terrorists

or even a larger in scale crisis event such as Hurricane Katrina and the

aforementioned issues increase exponentially. Unified command may be within a

single discipline such as a county police force, a state police force, or a federal

law enforcement agency (e.g., Allred, 2004; Boin et al., 2005; Brunacini, 1985;

Lester & Krejci, 2007; Smits & Ally, 2003).

22

Governmental agency personnel respond to incidents, emergencies, and

disasters daily in the United States (Boin et al., 2005; Bourne, 2005). While the

dynamics of each incident may differ, there is one common thread: it will take

decisive and appropriate leadership to resolve the situation (Bitto, 2007; Bourne,

2005; Howitt, 2004; Mitroff, 2004). Lester (2007) stated that it will take

transformational leadership coupled with NIMS to achieve success during all

phases of a disaster. Guidelines have been provided regarding how to prepare

for and respond to incidents in a uniform manner throughout the country (Bourne,

2005; Hanneman, 2007; Perry, 2003). What appear to be lacking are guidelines

on how to lead during such incidents. Team or group leadership has been the

subject of much research (Avolio et al., 2003). What remains to be examined in

detail is individual, group, and/or team leadership during an actual incident. Even

in the limited number of studies completed regarding team or group leadership,

the focus has been on groups who have been established and function in a less

than hazardous environment (Avolio et al., 2003; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Kearney &

Gebert, 2009; King, 2002).

Phillips (1999) stated that the incident commander is responsible for

establishing command, ensuring responder safety, and assessing incident

priorities. Further, the incident commander is responsible for developing and

implementing the incident action plan, developing as necessary organizational

structure, and maintaining a manageable span of control. Finally, the incident

commander must manage incident resources and coordinate overall emergency

activities. According to Hanneman (2007), most incident commanders initially see

23

a problem from their own areas of expertise. Incident commanders can easily

become fixated on their own perspective and bound by the biases of their

discipline. However, visionary or progressive incident commanders can look

beyond the paradigms of their discipline and incorporate or understand the views

of commanders from other disciplines (Lester & Krejci, 2007; Yukl, 2006).

Klann (2003) declared that a leader’s influencing skills are critical during a

crisis. Murgallis (2005) argued that team confidence begins with those who lead

the team. Klann stated leaders should concentrate on three key influencing skills

during a crisis: communication, clarity of vision and values, and caring for others.

These influencing skills fit the definition of transformational leadership. When

considering crisis, emergency, or incident response the team leader is actually

the agency commander on the scene. Hence, UC and IC need more examination

in the context of NIMS and ICS (e.g., Lennartsson, 2006; Lester & Krejci, 2007;

Moran, Perrin, & Blauth, 2005).

Lindell et al. (2007) set forth the seven basic principles of ICS, which are

standardization, functional specificity, manageable span of control, unit integrity,

unified command, management by objectives, and comprehensive resource

management (Annelli, 2006; Cardwell & Cooney, 2000; Herron, 2004; Jamieson,

2005). Canton (2007) and Connor (1997) stated ICS developed out of the need

to manage the response of participating agencies. The fire service was the first to

implement and use ICS. It remained solely a use of the fire service for many

years. It has only been since the 1990s wherein other disciplines such as some

police agencies have adopted ICS. Only since 9/11 has a mandate come down

24

that all agencies must use ICS. This mandate is tied to federal funding (Brown,

2005; Buntin, 2001; Molino, 2006).

According to Canton (2007), in 1971 Firefighting Resources of Southern

California Organized for Potential Emergencies (FIRESCOPE) identified six

major problem areas found while fighting California wildfires. These six areas

were “lack of common organization, poor on-scene and interagency

communications, inadequate joint planning, lack of valid and timely intelligence,

inadequate resource management, and limited prediction capability” (p. 286;

Buntin, 2001; Cardwell & Cooney, 2000). While commanders are to be guided by

the concepts of ICS how they carryout these functions will likely vary (Comfort,

2002; Connor, 1997). Further, it is acknowledged that some will carryout the

concepts of ICS rather reluctantly (McCeight & Hagen, 2007). According to Buck

(2004), using a UC under NIMS should take into account the missions of all

responding agencies.

According to Flin (1996) and Molino (2006), fire/EMS, police, and

transportation agencies have various roles, objectives, and/or missions to play in

many incidents. However, transportation agencies are sometimes not considered

as being on the same response level as fire/EMS and police. Helman (2004) stated

that the other participants, labeled as secondary responders, consisted of

transportation agencies, towing and recovery service providers, and hazardous

material contractors (Corbin et al., 2007; Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996;

Hopkins, 2007). Typically, in highway incidents fire/EMS personnel may arrive and

set up command before the police arrive. Transportation agencies have a

25

significant stake in highway incident management but usually have no direct

control over when to open the highway since statutory authority usually rest with

the police or fire agencies (Allred, 2004; Miller, 2007).

Canton (2007) added an opposing view regarding the utility of ICS based

on Dr. Russell Dyne’s comments concerning community emergency planning.

Canton stated the military model assumes that pre-emergency social

organizations will collapse and commanders will be incapable of useful personal

action. Canton argued that ICS is based on a military model. Canton’s argument

relies on the assumption that responding agencies had a pre-emergency social

relationship to begin with. As was illustrated previously, such a prosocial

relationship did not exist between the New York City police and fire agencies on

9/11 (Nicholson, 2003). Canton discussed Botterells Laws of Emergency

Management: stress creates an opportunity for unintelligent decisions; the

problem is at the starting point; regardless of who one trains, other untrained

people will respond; and expectation is reality.

Leadership Examined

Leadership has been one of the most studied areas in business and still

one of the most perplexing areas of inquiry (Phills, 2005). Leaders and followers

carry out the tasks of organizations. There is little doubt that leaders or those

who hold leadership positions affect followers. This impact can be positive,

negative, or possibly neutral. While often overlooked, followers can have the

same impacts on leaders. In fact, leaders are beholding to followers. Likewise,

the organizational culture can have the same impact on both followers and

26

leaders. Followers can also be leaders as well as leaders can be followers.

Relationships, or the lack thereof, play a key role in the success or failure for

leaders, followers, and organizations. Phills (2005) pondered the question of

does leadership really matter. Phills said that for leadership to matter the leader

must be able to influence the performance of an organization. This means

increasing public welfare and social value. This influence should be intentional

and rational instead of accidental (e.g., Bass, 1990; Dessler, 2001; Northouse,

2001).

According to McLean (2005), there is much debate as to whether

management and leadership are the same. Staveley (2002) stated there are over

500 definitions of leadership. Meese and Ortmeier (2004) provided three

overarching theories of leadership each of which has a number of independent

theories within the larger theory. Leader-centered theories include trait theories,

behavior theories, personal-situational theory, and interaction-expectation theory.

Follower and context-centered theories include situational theory, contingency

theory, and path-goal theory. Leader-follower interactions-centered theories

include leader-follower exchange theory, transformational theory, and the

psychodynamic approach (Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002). For the purpose of this

research, the term leader and manager was used synonymously.

There are hundreds of definitions of leadership, leader, follower, and

manager. Leadership involves the assumption that one person exerts intentional

influence over another wherein the leader guides, provides structure, and

facilitates activities and relationships within a group (Yukl, 2006). Yukl (2006)

27

stated that leadership is more of a social process than a specialized role. Yukl

added that an individual is likely to be both a leader and follower at the same

time (e.g., Bass, 1990; Northouse, 2001).

Yukl (2006) stated leadership is the process of influencing others to

understand and agree about what needs to be accomplished and how to do it

and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to achieve shared

goals. Northouse (2001) expanded upon the definition of leadership by stating

that leadership is a process, involves influence, occurs in a group context, and

involves goal attainment. Leadership has been defined as “the art of influencing,

directing, guiding, and controlling others in such a way as to obtain their willing

obedience, confidence, respect, and total cooperation in the accomplishment of

an objective” (Iannone, 1987, p. 34). Iannone also stated there is considerable

resistance to leadership training.

Blanchard and Hersey (1996) discussed situational leadership. Blanchard

and Hersey stated that effective leaders must be able to identify the demands of

their situation and adjust their leadership style to fit. Alternatively, the leader must

change some or all of the variables. These variables include the leader’s

organization, supervisors, peers, and the job demands.

Keeping with this analysis of the forms of leadership influence, Fyfe et al.

(1997) illustrated 11 forms of leadership influence: legitimate request,

instrumental compliance, coercion, rational persuasion, rational faith,

inspirational appeal, indoctrination, information distortion, situational engineering,

personal identification, and decision identification. Fyfe et al. went on to examine

28

factors, which affect leadership styles. Individual factors include self-esteem,

perceived stress, managerial potential, and interpersonal skills. Work-group

factors include leader-member relations, work group norms, and work-group

skills. Environmental factors include task clarity, goal clarity, and power position.

Task factors include nature of the task, task complexity, time constraints, and

criticality of task. Organizational factors include organizational goals,

interdependence of units, degree of autonomy, and locus of authority (Mitroff,

2005).

There are many models, theories, and types of leadership. Some of these

models, theories, and types or styles lend themselves more toward success and

influence than others. According to Choi (2006), charismatic leadership has three

core competencies: vision, empathy, and empowerment. It is argued that

charismatic leadership is a powerful model for influencing followers. Yet, even

this style can have a negative influence if the leaders’ motives are exploitative,

non-egalitarian, and self-aggrandizing (e.g., Bass, 1990; Northouse, 2001).

Two types of leadership styles often described are transactional and

transformational. Tucker and Russell (2004) stated that transformational leaders

are innovative in nature and are more concerned with the quality of life of their

followers. Transformational leaders provide energy producing characteristics. On

the other hand, transactional leaders use power and authority that already exists.

Transformational leaders motivate followers to create new and greater change

(e.g., Bass, 1990; Dessler, 1995; Northouse, 2001; Stone, Russell, & Patterson,

2004).

29

Fyfe et al. (1997) discussed several other leadership theories or styles.

The well-known leadership grid provides seven styles, which include country club

management, impoverished management, middle of the road management, team

management, authority-compliance management, paternalism/materialism

management, and opportunism management. Lastly, path-goal theories of

leadership function from the premise that employees will do what leaders want

them to do if the employee understands what to do and the employee sees the

attainment of his or her own personal goals in attaining the organization’s goal.

Four types of leadership were created from path-goal theory: directed leadership,

supportive leadership, participative leadership, and achievement-oriented

leadership. The leadership styles discussed are in no way limited to policing.

Unlike some other fields or professions, police organizations follow a much more

militaristic model. This resemblance is both symbolic and functional in nature.

Add to this the bureaucratic nature often found in many public agencies and the

organizational style of most police agencies can be seen (e.g., Hansen, 1991).

Hansen (1991) stated that team management is the most effective style

from the offerings in Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid. According to Hansen,

those who practice team leadership are able to build effective teams, resolve

problems and conflicts, and promote employee development. Yukl (2006) listed

the determinants of team performance, which included commitment of shared

objectives, member skills and role clarity, internal organization and coordination,

and external coordination. Yukl also included resources and political support,

30

mutual trust and cooperation, and collective efficacy and potency. The leader

influences team performance by increasing these processes in a positive way.

Policing is subject to the same styles and differences in leadership or

management as any other profession or organization.

Flin (1996) discussed leadership traits of incident commanders. Flin stated

that the military along with the police and fire service look for leadership potential

when selecting officers. Flin went on to say that Field Marshall Montgomery

considered the ability to make decisions and remain calm as the two most

important attributes of a leader. Flin listed personality characteristics of the

incident commanders. These characteristics included a willingness to take a

leadership role, emotional stability, stress resistance, and decisiveness. Other

characteristics include controlled risk taking, self-confidence, and self-awareness

(Smallwood & Seemann, 2003). Howard (2005) stated leadership involves verbal

and nonverbal communication that involves coaching, motivating, or inspiring,

directing or guiding, and supporting or counseling.

According to Densten (2003), transformational leadership incorporates

three other types of leadership, which are transactional, transformational, and

non-leadership behaviors (laissez-faire). Those who use transactional leadership

pursue a cost-benefit or economic exchange to meet current material and

psychic needs of their employees in return for expected effort. Three types of

transactional leadership have been identified. Contingent reward, which

represents proactive leadership behaviors which link reward and effort through

negotiation is one type. The others are management-by-exception (active) and

31

management-by-exception (passive), which represents a passive leadership

style that is used only when the status quos is rejected or is not functioning

(Palmer, Walls, Burgess, & Stough, 2001).

According to Boin et al. (2003), Canton (2007), and Reardon (2005),

leadership style may vary due to individual preference, agency preference, or

cultural paradigms, and because of the situation itself. Recognition of incident

command principles may be affected by an individual leader’s familiarity with and

understanding of the ICS. Transformational leadership according to Densten

(2003) occurs when leaders seek to raise the consciousness of their employees

by appealing to higher ideals and values. Transformational leadership has five

types of behavior, which are idealized influence (attribute), idealized influence

(behavior), individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational

motivation. Idealized influence includes leadership behaviors that instill pride,

faith, respect, and a sense of mission (Bass, 1990; Fyfe et al., 1997; Kearney &

Gebert, 2009; Tucker & Russell, 2004). Morreale and Ortmeier (2004) added that

transformational leader’s set high standards. Transformation requires change

(Lester, 2007).

According to Ahn, Adamson, and Dornbusch (2004), 50 to 70 percent of

change fails to take hold. According to Densten (2003), several studies have

shown that police agencies and their leaders in general do not practice

transformational leadership. Instead, they practice transactional leadership and

rational influencing behaviors and the dominant leadership style of police

organizations has been management-by-exception. This includes relational

32

influencing behaviors. According to Hunter (2006), transformational leaders can

transform emergencies into developmental challenges by presenting crisis as

intellectual stimulus to encourage followers to seek thoughtful, creative, adaptive

solutions to stressful conditions, instead of hasty, defensive, or maladaptive

ones.

Flin (1996) and Molino (2006) stated NIMS and its IC/UC elements along

with most of its program elements are not typical of how police have dealt with

incidents in the past. To confound the matter further this model was adopted from

the fire service. Police and fire have typically had their friendly differences just as

do the branches of the military. Furthermore, NIMS offers no guidance as to what

type of leadership model should be followed.

Many styles and theories of leadership exist; however, several styles or

theories were examined as they related to the handling of incidents. Yukl (1989)

along with Northouse (2001) provided descriptions of several leadership styles,

which were considered for examination. The style approach was considered

using Blake and Mouton’s Managerial (Leadership) Grid. In addition, the style

approach was considered using the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire

(LBDQ-XII). Situational leadership was considered using the SLII model that is

an extension of Hersey and Blanchard’s original situational model. Finally,

leadership style was considered using the Path Goal Theory and the Path-Goal

Leadership Questionnaire. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X-

short) was considered. This instrument measures and assesses a range of

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire or nonleadership scales. Finally,

33

the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) was considered. This measuring device

assesses leadership criteria developed and labeled by Kouzes and Posner

(2002). After further examination, only the MLQ 5X-short survey instrument was

used in conjunction with a questionnaire developed to capture ancillary data. This

integration of conceptual framework approach helped to increase the

generalizibility of the findings, reduce or recognize rival casual factors, and

strengthen the meaningfulness of the findings through interacting variables.

Probability was increased by using a multivariate approach (Yukl et al., 2002).

It was surmised based on prior literature research findings (Bass, 1990;

Northouse, 2001; Wren, 1995; Yukl, 2006) that most leaders practice

transactional, directing, or authority-compliance style leadership traits during a

crisis. This is because of the urgency of the incident. There are six leadership

theories/models, which provide guidance and are applicable to the questions

posed in this study. Yet, as with many disciplines and areas of study, theory

integration is lacking or resisted. Theory integration is ideal to blend leadership

theories thus increasing the variables examined, reducing causal relationships,

and increasing generalizability. However, being a student seeking not only

answers to the research questions but a better understanding of the entire

research process this endeavor is best saved for the future. Several leading

theories and methodological approaches for this research were analyzed and

considered. While consideration was given to several theories and their related

studies, the focus was on path-goal theory, situational leadership, contingency

theory, transformational leadership, and leader-member exchange theory.

34

Theories, which explain leadership effectiveness in terms of situational

moderator variables, are called contingency theories. Most of the theories

considered for this research fall within the realm of contingency theories

(Goodson, McGee, & Cashman, 1989; Jordan, 1998; Yukl et al., 2002).

Clements and Washbush (1999) discussed the dark side of leadership.

Good leadership can create good for the social or organizational order but bad

leadership can equally create social disorder. Negative leadership can create or

result in bad decision-making, frustration, dysfunctional organizations, and

unintentional results. Such negative consequences may result from a leader who

fails to look inside, mirroring or acting as they believe followers think they should

act, narcissistic behavior, emotional illiteracy, and what is called the Edifice

Complex wherein they fear their legacy will be destroyed (e.g., Bass, 1990;

Northouse, 2001). Buhler (1993) argued that win-lose situations should be

avoided. This is an important task for leaders.

Perkel (2005) explained that when we think of leaders, such terms, or

traits as integrity, honesty, wise, ethical, and visionary come to mind. More likely,

we hope they come to mind as well as fruition. However, bad leadership can also

occur and do great harm. Bad leadership can be seen as a continuum of

behavior from plain incompetent, intemperate, callous, and corrupt to pure evil.

According to Yukl (2006), a leader can influence many things. A leader

can influence the interpretation of external events for followers, choice of

objectives and strategies to pursue, and motivation of followers to achieve

objectives. In addition, the leader can influence mutual trust and cooperation, the

35

organization and coordination of work, and allocation of resources. The leader

can influence the development of followers’ skills and confidence, learning and

sharing of knowledge, and support and cooperation from external sources.

Finally, the leader can influence the design of formal structure, programs, and

systems and of critical importance; he or she can influence shared beliefs and

values of followers (e.g., Bass, 1990; Northouse, 2001).

Yukl (2006) stated that power and influence are distinct concepts. A leader

will have some form of power be it personal or positional or both. However, the

outcome of leader-influenced behavior on a follower may result in commitment,

compliance, or resistance. It is commitment, which leaders should strive to attain.

Phills (2005) stated that leadership is or should be linked to the organizational

culture, vision, strategy, innovation, and learning. Leadership is important to any

organization but followership is equally important. Many companies are relying

less on leaders and more on individual employees or teams (e.g., Bass, 1990;

Buhler, 1993; Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1995; Northouse, 2001).

Bolman and Deal (2003) illustrated various sources of power. First is

position power or authority. Information and expertise are sources of power.

Another source involves control of rewards. Coercive power is another source.

Alliances and networks also provide a source of power. Along these same lines,

access and control of agendas are a source as well. Finally, framing control of

meaning and symbols are a source of power. As can be seen, followers can

often have many sources of power (e.g., Bass, 1990).

36

Tucker and Russell (2004) stated that leaders influence the internal

mindset of their followers, the culture of the organization, and the external

culture. Transformational leaders help followers recognize and achieve their own

leadership potential. Likewise, transformational leadership increases productivity

and innovation (e.g., Bass, 1990; Dessler, 1995; Northouse, 2001). Stephan and

Pace (1991) provided five effective keys to leadership which include leaders

should treat others as friends. Leaders should create a positive force. Leaders

should invite others to follow. Leaders should empower others to act. Lastly,

leaders should strengthen themselves. Stone et al. (2004) offered four primary

behaviors of transformational leaders. Transformational leaders have idealized

influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration. Servant leadership is very similar to transformational leadership.

However, servant leadership does not rely on charisma.

According to Dessler (1995), charismatic leadership behavior fosters

envisioning, energizing, and enabling. Envisioning involves articulating a

compelling vision, setting high expectations, and modeling consistent behavior.

Energizing involves demonstrating personal excitement, expressing personal

confidence, and seeking, finding, and using success. Enabling involves

expressing personal support, empathizing, and expressing confidence in people.

Mirsalimi and Hunter (2006) described influential leadership as being leadership

that relies on leadership not coercion. The influential leadership model consists

of core values of authenticity, humility, service, and integrity. Core skills include

listening, reflecting, modeling, dialogue, and use of self. From core values and

37

cores skills comes presence. Trust is then developed followed by influence and

ultimately results.

One must be able to exert influence over organizational performance to be

a leader (Phills, 2005). Maxwell (1998) stated leadership is nothing more than

influence. It has often been thought that leaders are active and followers are

passive (In praise of followers, 1992). Such thoughts are a misnomer about the

abilities of and relationships between leaders and followers.

Leader/Follower Interaction

According to Yukl (2006), the term follower is used to describe one who

acknowledges a leader as the main source of direction regardless of the leaders’

actual authority. Followers do not have to be direct reports of the leader. Those

who reject the formal leader and purposely attempt to remove the leader from his

or her position are described as rebels or insurgents. As can be surmised,

leadership does not always come from someone with legitimate authority.

Leadership is also about power, which can be interpreted as influence. Yukl

discussed different types of power. Positional power includes legitimate, reward,

coercive, information, and ecological. Personal power includes referent and

expert power (e.g., Bass, 1990; Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 1995). Bass (1990)

declared that there is not an absolute amount of power. Bass also stated power

can and should be shared with followers (e.g., Northouse, 2001). Hence comes

the concept of empowerment.

According to Yukl (2006), for many years it was assumed that it was in all

followers’ best interest to allow themselves to be led. In other words, it was in

38

everyone’s best interest to cooperate to achieve shared objectives. However, in

recent years the concept of leadership has changed to recognize more of an

emotional influence than just what seems reasonable. The concept argues that it

is only through emotional valued based leadership influence that exceptional

achievement is recognized. Leaders inspire followers to sacrifice what is in their

own interest for a higher cause. In reality, both rational and emotional motives

are likely to occur in leader follower relationships (e.g., Bass, 1990; Northouse,

2001). Emotional intelligence includes self-awareness, self-regulation,

motivation, empathy, and social skills (Dessler, 1995).

Leadership and followership can bring about good or bad results. Yukl

(2006) argued that strong leadership could bring order from chaos. Strong

followership can stymie productivity. What matters is what type of strong

leadership or followership is involved. Choi (2006) stated charismatic leader’s

empathetic behavior creates the followers’ need for affiliation in several ways.

Trust will be created. The follower will believe the leader cares about him or her.

The follower will be able to better identify with the leader. Such charisma can be

very positive or very negative (e.g., Bass, 1990; Northouse, 2001; Tucker &

Russell, 2004).

Followers have the ability to influence as well. Clements and Washbush

(1999) described follower behavior using a two-dimensional taxonomy. Five

styles are given. Exemplary includes active and independent along with critical

thinking. Conformist includes active and dependent along with uncritical thinking.

Passive includes passive and dependent along with uncritical thinking. Alienated

39

includes passive and independent along with critical thinking. Finally, pragmatist

includes medium on both dimensions. Clements and Washbush went on to

describe follower syndromes. The dispositions or syndromes described are

pathological in nature but function on a continuum of behavioral degree. A

follower may have a controlling disposition. This person has an authoritarian

personality. Often this type ends up in leadership positions. Dysfunctional

follower behavior, which is considered the histrionic, is another type. This type

seeks attention, is over-reactive, and like the controller is submissive to the

leader. This type follower is very impressionable and extremely loyal to

charismatic or transformational leaders. The passive-aggressive follower can

appear acquiescent. Their pessimism, resentment, and covert resistance makes

for a poor follower. The dependent follower will come across as extremely

intense and overpowering, and will sacrifice anything for the leader. Finally, the

masochistic follower encourages others to take advantage of them and accept

blame for things they have not done. As stated, this range of behaviors can go

from normal to pathological (e.g., Bass, 1990; Buhler, 1993; Northouse, 2001).

Clements and Washbush (1999) described the Machiavellian personality

type. This can be found in the leader or the follower. Such types will deprive

leaders of important feedback for their own self-enhancement. Knowledge is

power. As was once said by Lord Acton, power corrupts and absolute power

corrupts absolutely (Yemm, 2006). Clements and Washbush stated a strong

follower can do much to sabotage a leader’s efforts for personal gain. Recall, a

leader is also a follower to someone else. Followers and leaders can damage or

40

effect self-esteem, self-efficacy, risk aversion, conflict avoidance, and tolerance

(e.g., Bass, 1990; Northouse, 2001).

Often overlooked is the fact that leaders and followers influence each

other (Buhler, 1993). Buhler argued that some organizations and or followers do

not need leaders as much as others. Those with greater experience or with

professional orientations are in less need for leadership. Having said this,

organizations are in need of good followers. Buhler (1993) stated good followers

should be active and independent critical thinkers (e.g., Bass, 1990; Northouse,

2001).

Maxwell (1998) stated that a follower’s capacity to achieve is decided by

their leader’s ability to empower. Maxwell went on to say that some leaders

withhold empowerment out of fear of being dispensable (e.g., Bennis, 1995).

Bass (1990) stated that leaders tend to react to followers compliance or

noncompliance. These reactions can be positive, negative, or neutral. In

essence, neutral would be no reaction by the follower. Leaders do the right thing

in lieu of just doing things right. Leaders work on improving the system in lieu of

just working within the system. The same can be said for followers (Covey,

1992).

Organizational Culture

Both followers and leaders are affected by the organization for which they

work and the situations they find themselves. The amount of influence a leader

needs depends on the situation (Yukl, 2006). Tucker and Russell (2004) stated

that organizational culture could stymie a leader’s ability to influence in a positive

41

way. Transformational leaders seek to change such organizational cultures.

Transactional leaders work within the existing culture (Bass, 1990; Northouse,

2001).

Lewis, Goodman, and Fandt (1998) defined organizational culture as the

system of common beliefs and values that develops within an organization.

Culture effects how people act in organizations; the way they perform, view their

jobs, work with others, and view things. Bass (1998) stated organizational culture

is a learned pattern of behavior passed from one generation to the next. Bolman

and Deal (2003) stated that culture is a pattern of shared fundamental

assumptions that a group learned as it solved its problems that has worked well

enough to be considered legitimate hence worthy to be taught to new members

as the right way to deal with related problems. Given the definition offered by

Bolman and Deal it is surmised that similar disciplines would have similar shared

experiences due to the nature of their mission and to some degree similar

adaptions with some degree of organizational variance. House and Aditya (1997)

reinforced the influence group norms have over leadership style (Torpman,

2004). According to Bass (1998), leadership affects organizational culture as

much as organizational culture affects leadership.

Organizational culture is a situational variable, which may influence the

leader (King, 2002; Stewart & Manz, 1995; Torpman, 2004). Organizational

culture may be dictated by the type discipline or industry, the specific

organization, or both (Burkle & Hayden, 2001). Yukl (2006) stated cultural

differences might influence the attitudes and behavior of managers in a number

42

of ways. Organizational values are likely to be internalized by managers who

move up in a particular culture. Mitroff (2004) stated that organizations have

personalities in the same way people do.

Mitroff (2004) discussed system age versus machine age systems. Mitroff

argued that too many organizations remain in a machine age mentality. This

includes the handling of emergencies. Mitroff added that crisis management is no

longer adequate; what is needed is crisis leadership. Gabris (2004) added that

bureaucratically designed organizations function in a system maintenance mode.

This system mode operates as a closed system and is entrenched in Machine

Age thinking. This philosophy creates a thing mentality and is geared toward

management. Transactional leadership fits this style of leadership. Conversely,

transformational leadership is more in line with System Age thinking (Bass,

1998). Atwater and Bass (1994) stated organizational culture most likely figures

prominently in the effectiveness of those teams that are clearly defined as a work

group. Teams typically rely on organizational culture to establish and clarify

values that will guide their actions.

Phills (2005) stated that leadership has to be tailored to the specific

individual, organization, place, and time. There are many factors, which affect the

leader’s ability to influence. Phills argued that the two most significant

mechanisms are psychological and emotional logic and the economic logic of an

organization. Psychological and emotional logic deals with mobilizing the energy

of its followers. This includes buy in regarding a sense of purpose. The leader

must work with the determinant, which exists at the time, which includes follower

43

motivation, talent, technology, creativity, capital, and other factors (e.g., Bass,

1990; Northouse, 2001).

Yukl (2006) stated that influence is the core foundation of leadership.

Leaders and followers are beholding to one another (In praise of followers,

1992). One major key to leadership is to influence through empowerment

(Stephan & Pace, 1991). Leadership and followership are a set of variables and

complex relationships. The leader and follower, as well as the organizational

culture and situation at hand affect these relationships. Leaders and followers

both have the ability to challenge; inspire; enable; model, and encourage each

other. In addition, one does not have to be a formal leader with positional power

to influence others as a leader who possesses dispositional power and influence.

All of the elements found in these relationships can and do spell either success

or failure for the work group and or organization as a whole if the roles are

sizeable enough.

Unified Command and Teams

The NIMS sets forth the requirement for use of a UC when more than one

agency is involved. This amounts to a team. Waldman (1994) argued that when

multifunctional teams with dissimilar backgrounds are brought together for a

limited amount of time to address a problem of significance the leader’s role is

critical. Waldman is speaking of members coming together from within the same

organization. The importance of leadership is compounded when these members

come from different organizations with different cultures, rules, and

responsibilities. Waldman stated that individualized consideration, intellectual

44

stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence are critical to the

success of a multifunctional team.

O’Neill (2008) discussed the fundamental elements of putting a team

together. First, relationships must be developed among key team members

before an emergency. Identifying other key resources that can be brought to bear

if necessary such as logistical support or personnel from other units or agencies.

Defining and documenting member’s roles and credentials is important. Training

and practicing together is critical. Finally, having the ability to share technology

such as communications is essential. According to Atwater and Bass (1994),

among the most significant aspects of the organizational context that affect team

success within the organization are: (a) its culture, (b) the clarity of the mission

assigned, (c) the reinforcers provided for successful performance, (d) the

availability of resources, (e) the physical environment, and (h) significant

outsiders. These factors are all clearly impacted during an emergency. Team

effectiveness may depend on having a clearly defined mission or purpose

(Atwater & Bass, 1994).

Team conflict can come from a variety of sources. According to Atwater

and Bass (1994), common causes of team conflict include: (a) poor

communications, (b) disagreement in how to carry out a task, (c) varying beliefs

regarding how to operate the team, (d) incompatible personalities and values, (e)

perception of unfair reward and or allocations, (f) disagreement over policy, (g)

unable to deal with change, (h) inappropriate leadership styles, and (i)

competition among members. The best way to overcome these hurdles is for the

45

team leaders to foster a trusting and open climate where communication flows

freely. However, conflict will arise and must be dealt with (Bass, 1998).

Team Leadership.

Ijames (2005) argued that sound teams when properly functioning create

synergy. In essence, the sum is greater than their parts. Zaccaro, Rittman, and

Marks (2001) addressed team leadership through the concept of reciprocal

influence, which dealt with leadership and teams influencing one another. This

study came close to examining reciprocal influence on team leaders on one

another. The study involved a stable environment where leaders were not thrust

together to deal with an emergency (Atwater & Bass, 1994). Zaccaro et al.

considered the following team processes: (a) feedback and control, (b) selecting

personnel, (c) developing personnel, and (d) utilizing and monitoring personnel

resources. Based on this, four outcomes were considered: (a) conflict control, (b)

team emotion control norms, (c) presence/absence of emotional contagion, and

(d) team emotional composition. All this leads to team effectiveness.

House and Aditya (1997) pointed out that of the 3,000 studies listed by

Bass in 1990 the vast majority were related to leader and immediate follower

relationships. The relationships between leader and organization, their leader,

external stakeholders, and peers had received little to no examination up to that

point. The focus on leadership remains leader and immediate subordinate but

attention has been given to other variables. Guzzo and Dickson (1996) discussed

findings involving teams within organizations by way of performance and

effectiveness. Variables include group composition, heterogeneity, and

46

performance. In this context, heterogeneity consisted of personality types,

gender, attitudes, and experience. As has been the case with other studies

examined, the focus was on internal teams and not divergent team leaders,

which form under emergencies (Zaccaro et al., 2001). Finally, Atwater and Bass

(1994) argued that team leaders cannot be experts in every possible area of

knowledge hence it is imperative that team leaders develop personal relations

with team members and to motivate them.

Police Culture and Leadership

Little research exists regarding the cultures of fire/EMS or

transportation/public works. However, a great deal of research has been

completed regarding police cultures and leadership. Some of the research and

discussion about police leadership and culture can be compared to other

disciplines such as fire and EMS with a degree of certainty. One such example is

the first line supervisor sets the tone for his or her unit (Oldham, 2003).

Traditional policing has relied on an authoritarian and bureaucratic model,

which has been reactionary in nature (Densten, 2003; e.g., Hansen, 1991).

According to Meese and Ortmeier (2004), the typical police response has often

been reactive and bureaucratic which focused on methods and procedures with

little ingenuity or strategic thinking to affect results. Efficiency and management

received more attention than effectiveness and leadership. This mindset stymied

creativity. Bureaucracies are generally over managed and under lead, creating

bored and unmotivated employees (Gabris, 2004; Maccoby, 2000; Wuestewald &

Steinheider, 2006). According to Kappeler (1995), two other goals of most

47

bureaucracies, the police as well, are the maintenance of organizational

autonomy and the security of their members (Slahor, 1999).

Alsabrook, Aryani, and Garrett (2001) stated that law enforcement has

traditionally been very slow to change. Some agencies are tradition bound and

managers feel they are the guardians of the status quos. Fyfe et al. (1997) stated

leaders have a zone of influence. This zone is found in the intersection between

the goals of the organization and the goals of the individual. Leaders can

influence not only individuals but also groups as well (Bono & Llies, 2006).

Hilgenfeldt (2001) went as far as to say that police agencies are suffering from a

disease, that disease being a lack of leadership. Instead, agencies and those

that lead them use window dressing wherein appearance is more important than

substance. Vision, character, substance, and values have been replaced with

rhetorical rationalizations and false appearances.

Theory Examination

Path-Goal Theory. Path-goal theory appeared to offer much promise in

operationalizing the research questions. The theory sets forth four leadership

behaviors, which allow for broad inclusion of the various styles, which might be

seen. According to Bass (1990), Northouse (2001), and Yukl (1989, 2006), path-

goal theory is supported by comprehensive research dealing with what motivates

employees. Path-goal theory examines how leaders motivate employees to

achieve goals. The goal of this theory is to improve employee performance and

satisfaction by focusing on employee motivation. Path-goal theory emphasizes

the relationship between the leader’s style and the characteristics of the

48

subordinates and the work setting. This theory is measured by using the path-

goal leadership questionnaire (e.g., Butler & Reese, 1991; Jermier, 1996;

Podasakoff, MacKenzie, Ahearne, & Bommer, 1995; Wofford & Liska, 1993; Yukl

et al., 2002).

Bass (1990), Northouse (2001), and Yukl (1989, 2006), all stated path-goal

theory provides four leadership styles: directive, supportive, participative, and

achievement-oriented. The causal variable for path-goal theory of leadership is

leader behavior. The intervening variables are subordinate expectations and

valences. Situational moderator variables include characteristics of task and

environment and the characteristic of subordinates. Causal relationships of

effects of supportive leadership on subordinates are reducing boredom and

making the job more tolerable; increasing the intrinsic valence of work; increasing

self-confidence and lowering anxiety; and increasing effort-performance

expectancy, which all results in increased effort. Causal relationships for effects

of directive leadership on subordinates include reduced role ambiguity and

increasing the effort-performance expectancy, increased size of incentive

followed by increasing outcome valences for task success, and strengthening

required contingencies followed by increasing performance-reward expectancies

with all three avenues resulting in increased subordinate effort. As with most of

the other theories, arguments are made that the theory has conceptual

weaknesses, though, it has been well tested (e.g., Butler & Reese, 1991;

Jermier, 1996; Podasakoff et al., 1995; Wofford & Liska, 1993; Yukl et al., 2002).

Of particular interest with path-goal are the situational moderator

49

variables. In the study at hand, the situational variables involved emergency

conditions. According to Yukl (2006), when the task is stressful, boring, tedious,

or dangerous supportive leadership is best used. When the task is unstructured

and complex, when employees lack experience, and when the rules are unclear

directive leadership is best used. The task for participative or directive leadership

is not as well developed. Participative leadership increases role clarity.

Achievement-oriented leadership increases employee effort and satisfaction

(Greene, 1979; Wofford & Liska, 1993).

Yukl (2006) stated that thus far studies on path-goal theory have resulted

in mixed results. In one review, 120 studies were analyzed in a meta-analysis.

Not enough studies have been done to truly test the situational moderators of

directive leadership. Methodological limitations make it difficult to interpret the

results of the research involving this theory. The majority of studies involving

path-goal theory use subordinate questionnaires to measure leader behavior. A

static correlational design is used. Another problem with these studies is that

they do not examine the entire theory such as examining intervening motivational

processes. With path-goal theory, each type of leadership behavior is considered

separately. However, this could be said about most of the theories.

Northouse (2001) described several of the strengths of path-goal theory.

The theory provides explanation for understanding how different leadership

behaviors affect subordinate satisfaction and performance. The theory helps

leaders decide which leadership style to use based on the demands of the

situation and type of subordinate handling the task. Expectancy theory is made a

50

part of path-goal theory. Expectancy theory is of practical use. Conversely, path-

goal theory is very complex and can be confusing. The breadth, scope, and

complexity involved in the theory makes its use in explaining the leadership

process in a particular organizational context difficult. Empirical studies have only

provided partial support for the theory. The theory fails to explain fully the

relationship between leader behavior and employee motivation. A final criticism is

that most of the responsibility for success between the leader and subordinate is

placed squarely on the leader. On a final note, Wren (1995) stated that path-goal

research has examined the effects of the LBDQ categories of consideration and

structuring. Wren also stated that path goal theory is difficult to blend with other

more general theories. Likewise, the theory has variable support (Bass, 1990;

Wofford & Liska, 1993; Yukl et al., 2002).

Situational Leadership Theory. According to Bass (1990), Northouse

(2001), and Yukl (1989, 2006), the style approach was considered by using

Blake and Mouton’s managerial (leadership) grid. Along with situational

leadership style, this is one of the most well known models of leadership. The

results of this model are based on how leaders answered a series of questions

about management assumptions and beliefs. Concern for people and concern for

production create the scale. High concern for people and low concern for

production creates the style called country club management. Low concern for

people and for production creates an impoverished management style. A mid

range of concern for both people and production creates organization

management. High concern for people and production creates team

51

management. Finally, low concern for people and high concern for production

creates authority-obedience management. As with nearly all studies involving

leadership theories, there are criticisms of this approach. These criticisms include

the lack of congruency between leader’s styles and how they are associated with

performance outcomes; failing to find a universal style to fit all situations; and the

assumption that a high-high style is best. Yukl (2006) stated that the situational

leadership model fails to provide a clear explanation of the process by which

leader behavior affects subordinate performance. Goodson et al. (1989) disagree

with the situational leadership approach in that it does not allow for the necessary

interaction needed considering the role the individual subordinate plays in any

given situation. In other words situational leadership does not allow for

consideration of employee readiness at all levels (Blank et al., 1990; Butler &

Reese, 1991). Yet, in general, the theory has strength (Chen & Silverthorne,

2005; Ensby, 2005; Goodson et al., 1989; Van Auken, 1992; Yukl et al., 2002).

Northouse (2001) described several of the strengths of situational

leadership. Situational leadership appears to function well in the workplace. It

provides a credible training model for leaders. Over 400 of the Fortune 500

companies use this model. Situational leadership is practical and prescriptive. It

provides for leadership flexibility. Effective leaders can modify their style to fit the

situation (Van Auken, 1992). Northouse (2001) went on to state conversely, only

a few studies have been conducted which justify the assumptions and

propositions just mentioned. Situational leadership lacks a strong body of

research. Situational leadership offers ambiguous conceptualization regarding

52

subordinates’ development levels. Furthermore, situational leadership provides

for a one on one relationship but not group leadership or relationships. The

questionnaires used directly guide the answers to one of four specific choices,

which include directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating (e.g., Beck &

Yeager, 1996; Blanchard & Hersey, 1996; Chen & Silverthorne, 2005; Ensby,

2005; Goodson et al., 1989).

Atwater and Bass (1994) argued that most leaders do not display a single

leadership style at all times. Most leaders display different styles such as

directive or participative, task-oriented or relations-oriented, transformational or

transactional. Different situations may call for different styles. Blank, Weitzel, and

Green (1990) stated that situational leadership focuses only on subordinate

maturity as a moderator of two leader behaviors; one behavior is task and

relationship and the other leader behavior is leader effectiveness. Blank et al.

stated the theory has complex relationships between variables and the theory

contains ambiguities and contradictions. Blank et al. stated in order to test the

theory’s underlying assumptions, psychological and job maturity must be

addressed. Situational leadership is very applicable to the study of incident

management (Ensby, 2005; Schoenberg, 2005).

Contingency Theory. According to Yukl (2006), least preferred coworker

(LPC) contingency model describes how the situation moderates the relationship

between leadership effectiveness and a trait measure called LPC score. To

determine the LPC a leader is asked to think of the person who he or she likes

least and then rate this person on a bipolar adjective scale using such terms as

53

friendly-unfriendly. The LPC is supposed to determine the leader’s motive

hierarchy. Along with the motive hierarchy, the pattern of leadership behavior

varies depending upon the situation. An examination of 25 years worth of LPC

score testing was undertaken. The conclusion was that the scores better

reflected a value-attitude interpretation than the motive hierarchy. Low LPC

leaders are supposed to value task success. High LPC leaders are supposed to

value interpersonal success. The LPC score and effectiveness is dependent on a

complex situational variable called favorability or situational control. The

elements considered are leader-member relations, position power, and task

structure. The best scenario for the leader and the level of success achieved is

when the relationship with the subordinate is good, the leader has substantial

power, and the task is highly structured (Yukl et al., 2002).

Yukl (2006) stated a large number of studies tended to offer support to the

model. The major criticism of research based on this model was the model failed

to achieve statistical significance. Another criticism of the model is that its

definition lacks meaning. LPC Contingency is a model and not a theory because

it does not explain how a leader’s LPC affects group performance. LPC does not

help leaders change and grow. It does help to pick particular leaders for

particular situations (Yukl et al., 2002).

Northouse (2001) described several of the strengths of contingency theory.

Contingency theory is supported by a great deal of empirical research. The

situations leaders face are considered a key element of the theory. Contingency

theory is predictive, thus providing guidance for leaders as to how to deal with

54

certain situations. Contingency theory allows leaders to not be successful in all

situations. Data for leadership profiles can be built through use of the LPC.

Conversely, many studies have shown weaknesses in contingency theory.

Contingency theory fails to explain why one leadership style may be better than

another in a given situation. The LPC scale has been criticized because it does

not correlate well with other leadership measures. The idea of measuring one’s

own style of leadership through what they think about another style seems

illogical to some. Other criticisms of the theory include that the testing

mechanism is somewhat cumbersome, the instructions are less than clear, and it

does not offer a solid explanation as to what an organization should do to remedy

a mismatch between the leader and the task (Yukl et al., 2002). Finally, Wren

(1995) stated that the LPC scale has remained a point of contention. There are

questions as to the appropriateness of situational variables and the predictive

validity of the theory.

Transformational Leadership Theory. According to Bass (1990), Kearney

and Gebert (2009), and Yukl (2006), transformational leadership increases

follower motivation and performance. Transactional and transformational

leadership are not and should not be mutually exclusive. Transformational

behaviors include idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior),

individualized considerations, inspirational motivation, and intellectual

stimulation. Transactional behaviors include contingent reward, management by

exception (active), and management by exception (passive). The aforementioned

taxonomy was identified mainly by factor analysis of a behavior description

55

questionnaire called the MLQ 5X-short (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam,

2003; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bass, 1998; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Riggio & Orr,

2004). Bass (1990) and Yukl (2006) stated laissez-faire leadership has been

added as a third category. The MLQ 5X-short also measures three outcome

factors including: extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction (Avolio, Bass, &

Jung, 1999; Bass, 1990, 1998; Riggio & Orr, 2004).

Several studies have been undertaken using the factor analysis to

determine the construct validity of the MLQ 5X-short. Support was seen showing

the difference between transformational and transactional leadership. Yet, as

with other theories, weaknesses were found. The MLQ 5X-short has been refined

several times in an attempt to strengthen its validity. Transformational leadership

is considered effective in any situation. While universally relevant, it does not

mean that transformational leadership is effective in all situations. Situational

variables may increase or decrease the success of transformational leadership.

Transformational leadership is closely akin to charismatic leadership (Lievens,

Geit, & Coetsier, 1997; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Riggio & Orr, 2004; Smith,

Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004; Torpman, 2004; Tucker & Russell, 2004; Yukl et

al., 2002). Bass and Riggio (2006) stated transformational leaders may do better

in an emergency because, unlike transactional leaders who focus on short-term

outcomes and may be more likely to make rushed and poorly thought-out

decisions, transformational leaders are more likely to defer from making

premature decisions (Kearney & Gebert, 2009).

56

Avolio and Bass (2004) stated much of the research done involving this

theory has focused on one element, that being either transformational or

charismatic leadership. Field studies have been the most prevalent method of

examining this theory. A meta-analysis was conducted involving 39 studies using

the MLQ 5X-short. Transformational leadership behavior correlated more

strongly and consistently with leadership effectiveness than did transactional

leadership (e.g., Bass, 1990, 1997; Palmer et al., 2001; Riggio & Orr, 2004;

Smith et al., 2004; Yukl et al., 2002).

Construct validity of the MLQ 5X-short has been assessed through

numerous studies that illustrated support through factor analysis (Yukl, 2006).

According to Avolio and Bass (2004) and Rowold (2005), the MLQ 5X-short has

been developed, enhanced, and validated over the past 20 years. The validation

process has demonstrated both factorial and convergent validity, as well as

internal consistency, test-retest-reliability, and interrater agreement. The MLQ

5X-short has nine leadership scales along with three outcome scales. The MLQ

5X-short form analyzes 36 leadership factors (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass,

1990, 1998; Riggio & Orr, 2004).

Avolio and Bass (2004) and Rowold (2005) offered descriptions for each

leadership style and factor as well as outcome. Idealized influence (attributed and

behavior) type leaders are individuals who display conviction, trust, and values.

These type leaders emphasize the importance of purpose, commitment, and

ethics. Inspirational motivation type leaders inspire and motivate by appealing to a

vision of the future, inspire high standards, speak optimistically, and provide

57

encouragement and meaning regarding what needs to be accomplished.

Intellectual stimulation type leaders question assumptions, traditions, and beliefs,

and encourage new ways of doing things as well as expressing ideas.

Individualized consideration type leaders deal with individuals by considering their

needs, abilities and aspirations, and who listen attentively as well as advise and

coach. Contingent reward type leaders engage in a constructive path-goal

transaction of reward for performance. The leader clarifies expectations and

arranges mutually satisfactory agreements in exchange for assistance and

successful performance. Management-by-exception (active) type leaders monitor

performance and take corrective action if deviation from standards occurs. This

style leader enforces rules to avoid mistakes. Management-by-exception (passive)

type leaders wait for mistakes to be brought to their attention. Laissez-faire type

leaders are actually non-leaders. This style leader avoids responsibility, is absent,

fails to follow up, and resists sharing views on important issues.

Avolio and Bass (2004) and Rowold (2005) offered descriptors of outcome

as well. Extra effort is illustrated by getting others to try harder, heightens others to

succeed, and gets other to do more than expected. Effectiveness is illustrated by

effectively meeting others’ job related needs, effectively representing their group to

higher authority, and leading a group that is effective. Satisfaction is illustrated by

using methods of leadership that are satisfying and working with others in a

satisfactory way.

Rowold (2005) stated the MLQ 5X-short was tested for reliability by

calculating interrater agreement. Intraclass correlation (ICC) is one possible

58

indicator for interrater agreement. Test-retest reliability is another indicator of a

construct’s temporal stability. Hofmann and Jones (2005) discussed the use of

analysis of variance (ANOVA), along with ICC, and test-retest. All three methods

are employed with the MLQ 5X-short.

Jones, (2001), Northouse (2001), Tucker and Russell (2004) described

several strengths of the transformational approach. The transformational

approach has been well researched using many methodologies including a

number of qualitative studies. Over 200 theses, dissertations, and research

projects have been done utilizing this approach. The approach makes sense and

treats leadership as a process. The approach augments other leadership models.

Finally, the approach focuses on the subordinates needs. Conversely,

transformational leadership lacks conceptual clarity. The approach can be seen

as too simplistic in some respects. Arguments have been made that the

approach relies too much on personality and qualitative analysis. The charismatic

element of transformational leadership lends itself to abuse (Bass, 1990; Ohman,

2000; Riggio & Orr, 2004; Smith et al., 2004; Yukl et al., 2002). There have been

a voluminous number of studies conducted to test and replicate the results of the

MLQ 5X-short and the leadership styles of transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire leaders. Yet, there exist a dearth of studies which address the

variables of leadership style, emergency/incident management/response, and a

unified or team concept in a commingled analysis (Avolio et al., 2003; House &

Aditya, 1997; Yukl, et al., 2002). Jung and Sosik (2002) stated most research

regarding transformational leadership has evolved around follower’s individual

59

performance as opposed to the goals found in the collective mission. Collective

mission success would depend on outcomes such as empowerment, group

cohesion, collective confidence, and group’s effectiveness.

Antonakis et al. (2003) discussed environmental risk and leadership

hierarchy as each pertains to transformational leadership. Expectations of

leaders may be different between stable and crisis situations. Active

management-by-exception may be called for in a high-risk situation. Likewise,

first line supervisors may be more prone to exhibit individualized consideration as

compared to high-level leaders. First line supervisors may also be more task

oriented due to the very nature of their jobs as opposed to high-level leaders who

are supposed to focus at a more conceptual level (Kearney & Gebert, 2009;

Lester & Krejci, 2007; Riggio & Orr, 2004).

Leader-Member Exchange Theory. According to Yukl (2006), leader-

member exchange (LMX) theory postulates that leaders develop different

exchange relationships with different subordinates as the two parties mutually

agree. This relationship evolves based on personal compatibility and subordinate

competence. With time, a leader will develop either a high or low exchange

relationship with each subordinate. Normally most leaders will develop high

exchange relationships with a small number of subordinates. The employees will

receive more desirable tasks, be privy to more information, and allowed to

participate more and or at a higher level. This theory was modified to include a

lifecycle model. LMX theory entails the growth or decline of relationships. LMX

research has been examined as it relates to other variables. Research has taken

60

the form of field studies, some laboratory experiments, and a few studies have

used observation and analysis. Ambiguity about the nature of the exchange

relationship has been a consistent problem. The theory needs much more work

and structure. Attribution processes need to be enhanced. Vertical dyadic

relationships have been the primary focus of LMX theory. Most of the reliance on

LMX has been based on static field studies with questionnaires. More needs to

be done with longitudinal research and the use of other methodologies such as

observation, interviews, and analysis of communication (Epitropaki & Martin,

2005; House & Aditya, 1997; Yukl et al., 2002).

Northouse (2001) described several of the strengths of LMX theory.

LMX is a strong descriptive theory and makes common sense. LMX theory is the

only theory that considers a dyadic relationship as the centerpiece of the

leadership process. There is much research that supports this theory. The theory

has been validated by linking LMX theory to real outcomes (e.g., Epitropaki &

Martin, 2005). Conversely, stated Northouse, the major criticism of the theory is

that it goes against the idea of fairness. Discrimination against the out-group is of

concern. LMX did not create such discrimination; it only recognizes its existence.

Strategies to stop such discrimination of out-group members are not offered.

Another criticism of LMX theory is that it is not fully developed. Measurement of

exchanges has been questioned since the results were not always comparable.

Questions surround the standard scale used to measure exchanges as to

whether it is unidimensional or multi-dimensional (Yukl et al., 2002).

61

Multiple-Linkage Theory. Bass (1990) and Yukl (2006) discussed multiple-

linkage theory. For analyzing leadership behavior or traits during an incident,

multiple-linkage theory appears to be an excellent choice. While it is more

complex, it is much more comprehensive than other theories. Multiple-linkage

theory includes more relevant intervening variables, a wider range of leader

behaviors, and more situational variables. The multiple-linkage model is more of

a general conceptual framework than a definitive theory. Likewise, it is difficult to

test in a single study. The limited number of studies completed on this model

thus far have resulted in inconsistent findings. However, while the model is

congruent with the spirit of this exploration, it does not offer specific leadership

traits that can be classified and categorized thus fitting into the typical labeling

process such as autocratic, democratic, transactional, transformational, and so

forth (Yukl et al., 2002).

Multiple-linkage model may have the soundest framework for the study of

leaders interacting with subordinates and other leaders during an incident. Bass

(1990), Northouse (2001), and Yukl (1989, 2006) stated this model built on

earlier models of leadership and group effectiveness. The model described the

interacting variables, which determine the performance of a work unit. Situational

variables in the model exert influence at three points. They constrain managerial

behavior and moderate its effects. They directly influence intervening variables.

In addition, they determine the relative importance of the intervening variables.

The casual relationships among types of variables are as follows: leader

behavior coupled with situational variables otherwise known as neutralizers and

62

substitutes as described in leadership substitute theory. Intervening variables

include subordinate effort, role clarity and task skills, organization of work,

cohesiveness and cooperation, resources and support services, and external

coordination. Likewise, other situational variables may come into play. The result

being criteria of unit effectiveness. Put another way, based on team leadership

the intervening variables are task commitment, ability, role clarity, organization of

the work, cooperation and mutual trust, resources and support, and external

coordination. The multiple-linkage model is one of the first contingency theories

to emphasize leadership processes at the group level instead of the dyadic level

(Yukl et al., 2002).

According to Yukl (1989), multiple-linkage theory lacks a large volume of

research. The most glaring conceptual weakness is the absence of specific

propositions regarding leader behaviors influence with intervening variables in

which situations. It is more of a general framework than a formal theory.

However, the model fits well with other leadership theories (Yukl et al., 2002).

Leadership Survey Instruments

Quantitative Instruments. According to Bass (1990), Northouse (2001),

and Yukl (1989, 2006), the style approach uses Blake and Mouton’s Managerial

Leadership Grid. In addition, the style approach has used the LBDQ-XII.

According to Wren (1995), the most comprehensive study of leadership behavior

has used the LBDQ. Situational leadership has used the SLII model that is an

extension of Hersey and Blanchard’s original situational model. Leadership style

has used the Path Goal Theory and the Path-Goal Leadership Questionnaire.

63

The MLQ 5X-short measures and assesses a range of transformational,

transactional, and nonleadership scales. The LPI is a questionnaire, which

measures and assesses leadership criteria developed and labeled by Kouzes

and Posner (Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Wofford & Liska, 1993).

Blank et al. (1990) conducted a study wherein they tested the situational

leadership theory. In this study, a sample consisting of 27 hall directors and 353

resident advisors from two large universities were the participants. The LBDQ-XII

was used to measure task and relationship behavior (e.g., Jones, 2001). Blank et

al. (1990) stated to capture maturity measures of job and psychological maturity

were developed. The LBDQ-XII was administered to 350 upper-class students.

Anonymity was assured. The overall response rate was 88%. Overall results

offered nominal support for situational leadership theory. Blank et al. concluded

by stating that longitudinal data would be a better source of analysis in such

behavioral science research. Unlike the cross-sectional study undertaken in this

research, a longitudinal study may have provided detailed information over time

and changes that may occur within the population (Maxfield & Babbie, 1998).

In a study involving situational leadership Chen and Silverthorne (2005)

examined leadership effectiveness. Three hundred and fifty survey instruments

were randomly sent to selected managers throughout the United States. These

instruments were sent to manufacturing and service companies to reduce bias in

the sampling selection process. Twenty-six research hypotheses were examined.

The study showed that leaders must be able and willing to adapt their leadership

64

style to the situation. The questionnaire in this study appeared to have been one

created specifically for the study.

Atwater (1988) reported on a study he conducted involving the relative

importance of situational and individual variables in predicting leader behavior

and the impact on subordinate trust. It was discovered that particular leadership

behaviors were not always effective across all situations. Fiedler’s model

involving contingency theory was the first such contingency theory. In this

specific research, participants were drawn from three Navy Public Works Centers

where the level of trust and loyalty was thought to play a key role in such

contingency theories. The final sample consisted of 98 triads. Each triad

consisted of a first-line supervisor, the supervisor’s immediate supervisors, and

two subordinates working for the first line supervisor. Forty-two questionnaire

items were used from the LBDQ and the Supervisor Behavior Description

Questionnaire (SBDQ). A composite report was derived from each supervisor

and his or her subordinates, which stated what they actually did. The result of the

research gives support to Fielder’s Contingency Theory. Trust and loyalty are

considerable factors involving leader behavior.

Qualitative Instruments. Justis (1975) examined leadership effectiveness

from a contingency approach. Justis examined Fiedler’s contingency theory. The

three primary functions examined were positional power, the nature of the

subordinate’s task, and the nature of the interpersonal relationship between

leader and subordinate. The method involved 84 male undergraduate students.

Two assumptions were the basis of the study, which involved the independent

65

variables of reward dependence and leader competence. Unlike many

experiments involving leadership, this was a true experiment involving a control

group and test group. The results of this qualitative research experiment

indicated that the level of leadership effectiveness is strongly affected by the

perceived level of competence of the leader by the subordinate.

Testing instruments are not bound to a particular theory although some

are more logically useful and appropriate. For instance, in The Leadership

Challenge, Kouzes and Posner (2002) stated that the LPI was created to

measure the leadership behaviors discussed in the book. Yet, it is not the only

tool that can be used. Each research tool or questionnaire appears to be

proprietary. This limits some exploration of each tools usefulness or applicability.

Qualitative Versus Quantitative Methods and Other Methodological Issues

According to Yukl (2006), more studies are conducted on leadership

behavior than any other aspect of leadership. Questionnaires wherein either the

leader or subordinate are asked a series of questions is the most common

method of research. Quantitative leadership studies can be very subjective. More

use can and should be made of qualitative research. Lab and field experiments

made up less than five percent of all the studies completed on leadership over

the past 50 years. Many leadership theories have not been clear regarding the

level of conceptualization for each variable. Analyzing multi-level data is

beneficial. Often convenience samples are used in leadership studies. Yukl

(1989) discussed the limitations of survey research by way of questionnaire-

correlated research. Because of the limitations of survey research, some

66

leadership researchers have turned more toward qualitative descriptive methods

such as interviews, intensive case studies, and observation. Qualitative-

descriptive research is susceptible to bias and distortions as is any research.

Prior researchers primarily used the survey method, which is dependent on the

content of the survey in assuring the internal validity of the findings.

Bryman and Stephens (1996) described the importance of qualitative

research. They began by illustrating four basic types of qualitative research. A

detailed case study of a single organization and or leader is one type of study.

This may entail observation, semi-structured interviewing, and examination of

documents. Next is the multiple-case-study design. This would include an

examination of a small number of organizations and leaders. This type research

would most likely draw comparisons. Such research is what the book Good to

Great was based on. The other methods previously described would also likely

be used. The next design is based on a large number of leaders and would be a

semi-structured interview process. Lastly, there is the design that invites people

to describe specific leaders or leadership practices in detail. Questionnaires,

such as the MLQ 5X-short, address specific types of behavior whereas a semi-

structured interview allows the respondent to bring forth his or her own traits and

preoccupations.

Leadership Model Summation

Yukl (1989) pointed out the limitations of questionnaire-correlational

research. Yukl stated that some researchers are using more qualitative and

descriptive methods including observations, interviews, and intensive case

67

studies. Of course, qualitative studies can lend themselves to more subjectivity

and create more biases or distortions. Hence, multiple methods in researching

leadership reduces methodological errors and increases the operational

effectiveness and validity both internal and external of the study. As it stands,

research-involving leadership is still heavily weighted toward questionnaires and

a quantitative approach.

Having analyzed many leadership theories and data collection options the

following were considered potential research methods and theories. According to

Bass (1990) and Yukl (2006), path-goal theory offers the intervening variables of

subordinate expectations and valences. Situational moderator variables, which

include characteristics of task and environment and characteristic of

subordinates, are considered. Path-goal theory provides four leadership styles:

directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented. Path-goal theory

emphasizes the relationship between the leader’s style and the characteristics of

the subordinates and the work setting. The LPC contingency model considers

how the situation moderates the relationship between leadership effectiveness

and a trait measure called LPC score are relevant to this study. Along with the

motive hierarchy, the pattern of leadership behavior varies depending upon the

situation. Low LPC leaders are supposed to value task success. High LPC

leaders are supposed to value interpersonal success. The LPC score and

effectiveness is dependent on a complex situational variable called favorability or

situational control. The elements considered are leader-member relations,

position power, and task structure. All of these variables fit nicely into the study.

68

Leader-member exchange theory model describes the interacting variables,

which determine the performance of a work unit.

According to Yagil (2002), situational variables in the model exert

influence at three points. They constrain managerial behavior and moderate its

effects. They directly influence intervening variables. In addition, they determine

the relative importance of the intervening variables. The casual relationships

among types of variables are as follows: leader behavior coupled with situational

variables, otherwise known as neutralizers and substitutes are described in

leadership substitute theory. Intervening variables include subordinate effort, role

clarity and task skills, organization of work, cohesiveness and cooperation,

resources and support services, and external coordination. Based on team

leadership the intervening variables are task commitment, ability, role clarity,

organization of the work, cooperation and mutual trust, resources and support,

and external coordination. Multiple-linkage model is one of the first contingency

theories to emphasize leadership processes at the group level instead of the

dyadic level.

Summary

The literature illustrates the role of emergency and incident management

leadership when dealing with emergencies. Likewise, the fragmented and

disparate use and acceptance of ICS and UC was illustrated. The need for

leadership, and more specifically team leadership, involving a multi agency

response was discussed. Atwater and Bass (1994) stated transformational

leadership works best in a crisis and when ambiguity is high. After examining

69

various leadership theories it was determined that transformational leadership

and use of the MLQ 5X-short would be the best theory and instrument to

examine the leadership questions posed (Kearney & Gebert, 2009).

The use of ICS and UC in the Commonwealth of Virginia was examined in

this study. The role leadership plays and whether a particular style leadership is

dominant when dealing with emergencies is illustrated. Finally, a determination

has been made as to the perceived effectiveness of one style of leadership over

another when dealing with emergencies. Congruently, these answers will provide

important information for future incident commanders when working together

during the response and recovery phases of emergencies.

70

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD

According to Canton (2007) and Lindell et al. (2007), acts of terrorism

continue to grow more ominous with the possible use of chemical, biological, or

nuclear devices. Add catastrophic natural weather events that occur every year

and the need for a well-orchestrated response to all hazards remains paramount.

The leaders of first responders during an incident must practice command,

communication, cooperation, and coordination to maximize the effectiveness and

efficiency of any given response (Carlson, 1999).

According to Bullock et al. (2006), between 1976 and 2004, there were

1,069 major disaster declarations in the United States. In 1999 there were 50

major disasters declared in 38 states. There is a substantial list of known and

potential types of human-made and natural disasters. Bridge collapses,

pandemics, major traffic crashes, wildfires, floods, ice storms, earthquakes,

hurricanes, tornadoes, chemical spills, school shootings, and any style terrorist

attack provide a partial list of what those in the emergency response community

respond to every day. Failing to properly lead the response and recovery efforts

to any one of these events can cause cascading effects resulting in more loss of

life, more injuries, more loss of property, and economic loss (Howitt, 2004;

Sapriel, 2003; Waugh & Streib, 2006; Weiss, 2002).

While the dynamics of each incident may differ, there is one common

thread: it will take decisive and appropriate leadership to resolve the situation

(Bourne, 2005; Howitt, 2004). Lester (2007) stated that it will take

transformational leadership coupled with NIMS to achieve success during all

71

phases of a disaster. Guidelines have been provided regarding how to prepare

for and respond to incidents in a uniform manner throughout the country (Bourne,

2005; Perry, 2003). What appear to be lacking are guidelines on how to lead

during such incidents. Team or group leadership has been the subject of much

research (Avolio et al., 2003). What remains to be examined in detail is

individual, group, and/or team leadership during a real world incident. Even in the

limited number of studies completed regarding team or group leadership, the

focus has been on groups who have been established and function in a less than

hazardous environment (Avolio et al., 2003; King, 2002).

The problem that was addressed using the mixed methodology study was

that it is currently unknown whether there is a dominant leadership style

associated with incident commanders during an incident. The problem this

creates is that it cannot be determined if a UC is affected positively or negatively

by different or specific leadership styles[0]. According to Buck et al. (2006), the

ICS, as set out in the NIMS, will not likely work as intended (Lester, 2007). The

ICS provides a universal response model to all incidents; however, it is

recognized that ICS works best with firefighting organizations and is less

successful with police, public health, and public work-style agencies. The fire

service actually created ICS and has used the system the longest. The fire

service has long worked in a team environment as opposed to police who

typically work and handle calls for service alone. Transportation agency

personnel have typically found themselves on the periphery of emergency

response and normally in an assist mode (Buck, 2004; Buck et al., 2006;

72

Cardwell & Cooney, 2000; Helman, 2004; Reardon, 2005; Walsh et al., 2005;

Weiss, 2002).

Social relationships are essential to the success of ICS (Walsh et al.,

2005). Along with social relationships come the styles and attributes of

leadership (Avolio et al., 2003; Boin & Hart, 2003). Responses to incidents often

have political elements. Hurricane Katrina is cited as a prime example of the

wrong combination of ICS preparedness, leadership differences, and politics,

which created inadequate decision-making and a poor response (Cooper &

Block, 2006; Dixon, 2006; Fisher, 2005; Garcia, 2006; Lester, 2007; Weiss,

2002).

The purpose of this mixed methodology dissertation study was to examine

the prevalence of transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership

styles among incident commanders during incidents that utilized a UC approach

within the Commonwealth of Virginia and investigate differences between

disciplines in leadership style. The disciplines that were examined included

fire/EMS, police, and transportation or public works organizations. The incidents

under examination involved large-scale tractor-trailer crashes, which occurred on

the public highways within the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The following research questions and hypotheses were used to guide the

mixed method dissertation study:

RQ1: What was the dominant leadership style used during an incident

by the on-scene fire/EMS incident commanders?

RQ2: What was the dominant leadership style used during an incident

73

by the on-scene police incident commanders?

RQ3: What was the dominant leadership style used during an incident

by the on-scene transportation incident commanders?

RQ4: What, if any, difference existed between the leadership styles of

the fire/EMS incident commander compared to commanders

from other disciplines during similar incidents?

H1o: Responding fire/EMS commanders will not use

different leadership styles than do commanders from

other disciplines.

H1a: Responding fire/EMS commanders will use

different leadership styles than do commanders from

other disciplines.

RQ5: What, if any, difference existed between the leadership styles of

the police incident commander compared to commanders from

other disciplines during similar incidents?

H2o: Responding police commanders will not use

different leadership styles than do commanders from

other disciplines.

H2a: Responding police commanders will use

different leadership styles than do commanders from

other disciplines.

RQ6: What, if any, difference existed between the leadership styles of

the transportation incident commander compared to

74

commanders from other disciplines during similar incidents?

H3o: Responding transportation/public works commanders

will not use different leadership styles than do commanders

from other disciplines.

H3a: Responding transportation/public works commanders

will use different leadership styles than do commanders from

other disciplines.

Research Methods and Design(s)

The optimal design for studying the relationships encompassed in the

research project was a purposively selected, multi-grouped, non-experimental,

quantitative, descriptive, correlational design. The mixed methodology

dissertation study included three primary disciplines among first responders to

most incidents. Some incidents create more of a single command response. For

the purpose of this research, only incidents requiring a UC response were

examined.

According to Bass (1990), Kearney and Gebert (2009), and Yukl (2006),

transformational leadership increases follower motivation and performance.

Transactional and transformational leadership are not and should not be mutually

exclusive. The aforementioned taxonomy was identified mainly by factor analysis

of a behavior description questionnaire called the MLQ 5X-short (Antonakis et al.,

2003; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bass, 1998; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Riggio & Orr,

2004). Bass (1990) and Yukl (2006) stated laissez-faire leadership has been

added as a third category. Bass and Riggio (2006) stated transformational

75

leaders may do better in an emergency because, unlike transactional leaders

who focus on short-term outcomes and may be more likely to make rushed and

poorly thought-out decisions, transformational leaders are more likely to defer

from making premature decisions (Kearney & Gebert, 2009).

According to Bass (1990), Northouse (2001), and Yukl (1989, 2006),

the MLQ 5X-short instrument measures and assesses a range of

transformational, transactional, and nonleadership scales. Questionnaires, such

as the MLQ 5X-short, address specific types of behavior whereas a semi-

structured interview allows the respondent to bring forth his or her own traits and

preoccupations (Bryman & Stephens, 1996). The MLQ 5X-short has nine

leadership scales along with three outcome scales. The MLQ 5X-short form

analyzes 36 leadership factors. The survey measures nine factors.

Transformational leadership includes these factors: idealized influence

(attributed), idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, and individualized consideration. Transactional leadership includes

these factors: contingent reward, management-by-exception (active),

management-by-exception (passive). Laissez-faire is the final measure and

considered a non-leadership style. The MLQ 5X-short also measures three

outcome factors including: extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction (Avolio et

al., 1999; Bass, 1990, 1998; Riggio & Orr, 2004).

Construct validity of the MLQ 5X-short has been assessed through

numerous studies that illustrated support through factor analysis (Yukl, 2006).

According to Avolio and Bass (2004) and Rowold (2005), the MLQ 5X-short has

76

been developed, enhanced, and validated over the past 20 years. The validation

process has demonstrated both factorial and convergent validity, as well as

internal consistency, test-retest-reliability, and interrater agreement. Atwater and

Bass (1994) stated transformational leadership works best in a crisis and when

ambiguity is high. After examining various leadership theories it was determined

that transformational leadership and use of the MLQ 5X-short would be the best

instrument to examine the leadership questions posed (Kearney & Gebert, 2009).

Participants

The focal events of interest in this study were fatal crashes involving large

commercial vehicles (including straight trucks, tractor-trailers, and twin trailers) in

Virginia during 2006. All crashes that utilized a UC approach were considered for

the study. A UC or team approach as conceptualized for this research was one

that involved at least two or more leaders or commanders from each of the

respective agencies of fire/EMS, police, and transportation/public works.

Although the original expectation was to obtain data from multiple commanders

from each incident, this proved to be too difficult to obtain. Hence, data was

available from only one leader for many of the incidents.

The leadership style of each incident commander as exhibited only during

the specific incident under examination was considered. The other

responders/followers may routinely had limited exposure to the leaders in

question. In some cases, the incident commander of a particular agency may not

actually have had subordinates to lead at the scene but would still interact with

others. Such exposure may be limited to the one incident in question.

77

The concept of a UC requires a team approach from the various

responding agencies (Flin, 1996; Molino, 2006). A UC or team approach as

conceptualized for this research required that at least two or more leaders or

commanders from each respective agency were involved in a given incident.

Helman (2004) stated that the major participants in traffic incident management

are law enforcement, fire and rescue services, and EMS. While it was

determined that in all incidents under examination there were at least two leaders

this researcher was unable to obtain consent or acknowledgment but by only a

few leaders within the same incident.

It was decided early on to limit the type of incident/emergency to be

analyzed to a large-scale highway incident. Such incidents create the need for a

UC more so than the typical daily emergency. The other types of emergencies

requiring a unified response would be fewer in number and cross the expanse of

the entire country.

All data were obtained from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles 2006

crash database. During 2006, there were 107 such crashes in Virginia. Each crash

had an incident commander from the fire/EMS and police disciplines. In 19 of the

crashes there was also a transportation leader present and in two cases a leader

from another discipline was present.

Materials/Instruments

The MLQ 5X-short questionnaire was the primary survey instrument and

was purchased in its entirety for this study. This instrument was used to assess the

frequency of the three leadership styles: transformational, transactional, and

78

laissez-faire. Each commander completed one MLQ 5X-short for himself or herself

and was asked to have subordinates who were on scene complete the MLQ 5X-

short survey evaluating the commander’s leadership style.

The MLQ 5X-short form is commercially available and copyrighted, with

complete instructions for standardized administration. This instrument consists of

nine leadership scales along with three outcome scales. The nine leadership

scales include: idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior),

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration,

contingent reward, management-by-exception (active), management-by-

exception (passive), and laissez-faire measures (Avolio et al., 1999; Avolio &

Bass, 2004; Bass, 1990; Rowold, 2005). The MLQ 5X-short also consists of

three outcome scales: extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction (Avolio et al.,

1999; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bass, 1990; Rowold, 2005). Appendix E contains a

sample of the MLQ 5X-short form.

The survey questions not already found in the MLQ 5X-short were

developed into a separate survey. This survey is the Incident Commander Form of

the Descriptive Index (Appendix D). This survey instrument captured organization

type, individual level of experience, perception of incident difficulty, perception of

team performance, and the number of similar incidents the commander had been

tasked with handling previously. Organization type possible responses included

fire/EMS, police, transportation/public works, and other. Individual level of

experience as an incident commander in a UC possible responses included: 0-5

incidents, 6-10 incidents, 11-15 incidents, 16-20 incidents, and 21- plus incidents.

79

Incident difficulty (complexity) possible responses included not difficult, slightly

difficult, difficult, very difficult, and extremely difficult. Anchor definitions were

provided for the two ends of the scale. Team/unit (UC) performance possible

responses included very poor, poor, average/acceptable, good, and very good.

Descriptive statistics were used to answer Research Questions 1-3. Inferential

statistics were used to answer Research Question 4-6.

To increase internal validity in the dissertation, potential confounding

variables were accounted for by limiting available response to those presented in

the survey. To increase the study’s construct validity, the research questions

were precisely stated to measure what the study sought to measure. In addition

to using the well-tested MLQ 5X-short, a survey instrument, Appendix D, which

contains demographic/self evaluation data, was carefully designed to reflect the

precision of the research questions. To increase study internal validity,

participants were asked to respond to a survey that was strictly controlled by

response options. That is, respondents could only select between options

available and a non-response or a “don’t know” response was not allowed.

In order to assess internal consistency reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was

used to assess how well the items on each subscale reflected unitary constructs

(i.e., the extent to which all items measured the same thing). Intraclass

correlation (ICC) is one possible indicator for interrater agreement. Test-retest

reliability is another indicator of a construct’s temporal stability. Hofmann and

Jones (2005) discussed the use of ANOVA, along with ICC, and test-retest. All

three methods are employed with the MLQ 5X-short.

80

Measurement elements to support greater external validity in the study was

a non-probability purposive sample, using components of a validated survey (MLQ

5X-short), and a statewide sample that was distributed across the Commonwealth,

as well as organizational size and type (StatSoft, n.d.; MaCorr Research Solutions

Online, n.d.). External validity was enhanced by administering the survey to those

with functional and legal authority to act as commanders for their agencies at the

scenes of various transportation-related incidents/emergencies of a large scale

within the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Operational Definition of Variables

The independent variables in the research were the already formed

groups/disciplines, which included fire/EMS, police, and transportation. The

dependent variables in the research were leadership style which included

transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire leadership styles of the MLQ 5X-

short.

The qualitative part of the study explored the question: What was the

dominant leadership style used during the incident by the on-scene incident

commanders? Descriptive statistics were used to answer this question. The

second question was: What was the dominant leadership style used during the

incident by the on-scene incident commanders from each discipline? Inferential

statistics were used to explore the relationship between the leadership and

organization type.

Potential confounding variables in leadership research include subordinate

effort, role clarity and task skills, organization of work, cohesiveness and

81

cooperation, resources and support services, and external coordination. These

intervening variables are found in any organizational setting and are magnified

during emergencies (Yukl, 2006). Because the present study involved real world

incidents, there was no way to control every potential confounding variable.

However, the same type incidents were chosen for this reason. Data was

aggregated to compare the various disciplines across incidents.

Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis

A timeline was created to act as a guide to administer the survey

instruments, to collect, aggregate, and analyze the data, and to interpret[0] and

disseminate the results. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was

contacted to obtain information regarding traffic fatalities involving straight trucks,

semitrailers, and twin trailers during 2006. The DMV provided a list of 106 such

crashes. In keeping with the Code of Virginia, regarding Freedom of Information

material and privacy issues, the following information was requested: date of

fatality, county/city of fatality, and name of the investigating officer. Officers’

names were determined based on the badge or code number provided by the

DMV.

The investigating officers were contacted by phone and asked basic

questions to determine who the incident commanders were and to verify the data

collected thus far. The investigating officer verified whether a UC or team

approach was used, and he or she identified which agencies responded to the

crash and who was in charge from each agency. The preliminary questionnaire

used for this portion of the data collection can be found in Appendix A. Standard

82

definitions related to the study were provided in Chapter 1. One additional

incident was added to the list as a result of this process. It was likely, based on

the type crash, that the investigator only focused on the crash and left the larger

scene management to the other incident commanders. This in fact was the case,

but in many incidents the investigating officer was the police incident

commander. This was the first significant piece of data: whether anyone acted as

an incident commander.

Based on the preliminary information collected during the initial phase of

this data collection process, 163 surveys were sent out via hard copy by the U.S.

Postal Service. From the 107 crashes, one hundred sixty-six leaders were

identified, but in three cases the incident commander for one agency played a

dual role in another lead agency. The surveys included an informed consent form

(Appendix B), a cover letter with instructions (Appendix C), and the Incident

Commander Form of the Descriptive Index (Appendix D). Three weeks after the

initial survey was sent out, a follow up post card was sent to each incident

commander who had not already replied. Based on this phase of data collection

it was determined that 60 out of the 163 (37%) leaders were willing to complete

the MLQ 5X-short form. This determination was based on the incident

commanders completing the Incident Commander Form of the Descriptive Index

and consent form. Each leader rated his or her own leadership style that

occurred only during the handling of the incident (Flin, 1996). Each incident

commander evaluated his or her perceived level of success involving the

incident.

83

The Incident Commander Form of the Descriptive Index questionnaire

(Appendix D) was delivered to each incident commander for the respective agency

in each particular incident. This took the form of notifying said participant to

complete the survey with directions. The responses were tracked by the previously

coded number and the date. Three follow-up attempts were made to increase the

return rate for the data collection phase, including an email, a post card, and a

phone call. The same follow-up process was used regarding the MLQ 5X-short

data collection phase.

Each participant was coded with a number in ascending order, along with a

letter to identify their professional role. Each commander was contacted by way of

a written explanation and request. This written request included an informed

consent form providing the necessary information regarding voluntary participation

and a no harm statement (Appendix B). Instructions were provided with information

as to how the commander could complete the MLQ 5X-short survey online.

The MLQ 5X-short survey instrument was presented to leaders to take themselves

and distribute to subordinates that worked with them on the incident under

examination. When responding to the electronic MLQ 5X-short survey, the incident

commanders were asked to complete the self-evaluation based on their leadership

style during the incident in question. During the initial development of the research,

it was expected that only incidents wherein at least two commanders participated

would be included for analysis. However, based on the fragmented responses

within incidents, a narrow analysis of those incidents was unable to be conducted;

thus, a broader analysis across incidents and disciplines was utilized.

84

Follow up requests were made to those commanders who had not returned

the mailed survey. A post card, email, and phone call were made in that order as

needed. The initial follow up took place 15 days from the date the first survey was

sent. The final response rate, involving the actual completion of the MLQ 5X-short

by the incident commanders, was 62%. Once all of the data had been collected

and entered into an electronic database, SPSS was used to analyze and to

interpret the data. Correspondence thanking those commanders who participated

was sent. The data collected during this research was treated confidentially.

Prior to any analyses, the data for the dependent variables were reviewed

for normality and homogeneity to ensure that the assumptions of parametric

analyses were met. Normality was tested by skewness > 2 standard errors, Q-Q

plots (deviations from the line indicate non-normal distributions). Homogeneity

was examined as part of each t test via Levene’s test of homogeneity of

variances. Descriptive statistics (i.e., means and standard deviations) were used

to answer Research Questions 1-3, which sought to determine the leadership

style most strongly exhibited by each emergency response group. Inferential

statistics were used to answer Research Questions 4-6. Specifically,

independent samples t tests were used to compare each group to the other two.

The intention had been to use an ANOVA to compare the mean differences

across all three groups. However, there was insufficient data in one group

(transportation commanders) to do so.

Internal consistency of the MLQ 5X-short subscales was examined using

Cronbach’s alpha (SPSS, 2000). The data collection process outlined resulted in

85

collection of Likert-scale continuous data. It was expected that the use of

continuous data would result in parametric distribution of the dissertation data.

Data was measured at the interval level and examined to determine if the data

was parametric. Parametric data associated with the dependent variables of the

dissertation research were evaluated through the SPSS and MLQ 5X-short

output for all data. Data screening procedures to examine the data for outliers,

normality, and homogeneity was conducted. Descriptive statistics (means,

standard deviations) describing the nine leadership styles and 3 outcomes from

the MLQ 5X-short for the total sample were utilized. Likewise, descriptive

statistics (means, standard deviations) describing the 9 leadership styles and 3

outcomes from the MLQ 5X-short for each subset of participants was examined.

Finally, independent samples t tests comparing each subset to the other two in

terms of differences between groups on the various leadership styles and

outcomes on the MLQ 5X-short were completed.

Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

Not being a true experiment reduced the ability to have rigid control over

rival factors in the experiment. Manageable data was not easily accumulated or

processed. The study was designed to depict the characteristics of what was

observed, to determine settings for investigation, to target particular features

involving those settings for special attention, to describe in various ways the

findings, and to attempt to reveal dominant leadership traits, which may allow for

further investigation.

86

The research design was descriptive and exploratory in nature for

Research Questions 1-3 because so little was known from previous experiments

or studies about the topic. The research design was quantitative and

correlational/comparative in nature for Research Questions 4-6. The theoretical

foundation of the research relied on known leadership principles and

experimental research in other fields of study.

The study used the MLQ 5X-short to assess the frequency of the several

leadership styles. Construct validity of the MLQ 5X-short has been assessed

through numerous studies that have illustrated support through factor analysis

(Yukl, 2006). According to Rowold (2005), the MLQ 5X-short has been

developed, enhanced, and validated over the past 20 years. The validation

process has demonstrated both factorial and convergent validity, as well as

internal consistency, test-retest-reliability, and interrater agreement.

There were several limitations in the study. One weakness caused by this

lack of randomness was the inability to control confounding extraneous variables

(Aczel & Sounderpandian, 2002; Champion, 2006; Hagan, 2006). Participation was

sought from at least two incident commanders within each incident. This did not

happen in a majority of instances. Verifying or at least obtaining follower perception

of the observed incident commanders would have enhanced validity but data

gathering was problematic (e.g., Ohman, 2000). Another weakness was having to

rely on the self-ratings of MLQ 5X-short ratings from the incident commanders

only. This was due to low and fragmented responses and agreement to participate.

87

Also, MLQ 5X-short ratings submitted by subordinates had to be excluded from

analysis to maintain independence for t-testing purposes.

According to Collard (2002) and Miller (2006), there will be unique

circumstances for each situation such as the complexities and hazards involved

in the particular situation and the level of experience and expertise of the

followers involved. These variables were not examined. However, these variable

were illustrated. A weakness of the study may be the elapsed time from the

incident to the data collection from the leaders. Another concern was the ability to

obtain cooperation from the individual incident commanders and/or their

agencies. This concern proved to be valid.

There were several delimitations regarding this study. The mixed

methodology research study was a non-experimental design. The study did not

have random assignment of people to groups. Conceptualization of the study did

not call for a stimulus hence there was no need for either randomness or a

control group. The design of this study necessitated natural situations, which

would have been difficult to simulate in an artificial environment (Champion,

2006). This non-experimental design was not artificial in nature, which could

have hindered generalizability. Similar incidents were chosen all of which

provided similar levels of complexity and stressors.

Ethical Assurances

The completion of the questionnaires was voluntary. Appendix B contains

the informed consent form and cover letter. This research involved no deception

and was not experimental in nature. The information gathered was confidential.

88

Confidentiality was maintained by assigning specific groups of leaders to incident

numbers and assigning each leader in the incident an identifying number. The

various incident commanders and incidents were not identified by name or other

means that would have divulged their identity or specific agency. No foreseeable

risks were recognized in this study. The benefits were significant to the

participants in that there is potential for enhanced leadership during emergency

operations. Informed consent was obtained prior to proceeding with each

commander. Permission was obtained from the Northcentral University Internal

Review Board prior to initiating data collection.

Summary

The problem that was addressed using the mixed methodology study was

that it is currently unknown whether there is a dominant leadership style

associated with incident commanders during an incident. The problem this

creates is that it cannot be determined if a UC is affected positively or negatively

by different or specific leadership styles[0]. The purpose of this mixed

methodology dissertation study was to examine the prevalence of

transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership styles among incident

commanders during incidents that utilized a UC approach within the

Commonwealth of Virginia and investigate differences between disciplines in

leadership style. The research questions guiding this study were: a) What is the

dominant leadership style used during an incident by the on-scene incident

commander[0]?; and b) What, if any, differences exist between the leadership

styles of the incident commander compared to commanders from other

89

disciplines during similar incidents? The optimal design for studying the

relationships encompassed in the research project was a purposively selected,

multi-grouped, non-experimental, quantitative, descriptive, correlational design

(Trochim, 2005). The disciplines examined included fire/EMS, police, and

transportation or public works organizations.

The MLQ 5X-short form was the primary survey instrument. The MLQ 5X-

short was used to assess the frequency of the three leadership styles:

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. Each commander completed

one MLQ 5X-short for him or herself and was asked to have subordinates who

were on scene complete the MLQ 5X-short survey. The demographic/self

evaluation Likert-type scaled questionnaire was used to collect organization type,

perception of team/unit performance, perception of incident difficulty, and number

of like incidents the commander has been tasked with handling previously. Once

data were collected, SPSS software application was used to examine the

distribution of the variables of interest and assumptions of parametric analyses.

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the leadership style utilized by each

group, and independent samples t tests were used to compare each discipline

against the other two in terms of their leadership style.

90

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

The problem that was addressed using the mixed methodology study was

that it is currently unknown whether there is a dominant leadership style

associated with incident commanders during an incident. The problem this

creates is that it cannot be determined if a UC is affected positively or negatively

by different or specific leadership styles[0]. The purpose of this mixed

methodology dissertation study was to examine the prevalence of

transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership styles among incident

commanders during incidents that utilized a UC approach within the

Commonwealth of Virginia and investigate differences between disciplines in

leadership style. The disciplines that were examined included police, fire/EMS,

and transportation or public works organizations. The incidents under

examination involved large-scale tractor-trailer crashes that occurred on public

highways within the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Results

Data were collected from incident leaders of fire/EMS, police, and

transportation disciplines who responded to traffic crashes involving large

commercial vehicles including straight trucks, tractor-trailers, and twin trailers.

Included in the survey questionnaire were three demographic variables

consisting of experience, incident difficulty, and team performance. Since the

survey was administered to fire/EMS, police, and transportation officials, all

respondents were of adult age and 60 respondents provided their written

consent.

91

Once it was determined who investigated each fatality, attempts were

made to contact each investigator multiple times over the next 8 weeks. Each

investigator was called at least twice and emailed or called a third time. Of the

107 fatalities, 17 (16%) of the investigators never returned any phone call or

email. In addition, one agency refused to answer any question without a

Freedom of Information Act request in writing, and two investigators stated they

did not investigate the crashes as the records indicated. Hence, these 20 (19%)

fatal crashes were excluded from further analysis.

Of the 87 crashes that fit the inclusion criteria for the research, 16 (18%)

were not applicable for further examination. The preliminary contacts indicated

that UC was not used and that the agencies did not work together. In one of

these cases, no vehicles involved fit the definition submitted. This left 71 crashes

available for analysis. After having obtained the reports, each report was coded

numerically along with a letter of the alphabet corresponding to each discipline

under examination.

Thirteen agencies with emergency response roles within the

Commonwealth of Virginia participated in this survey. Data were collected from

incident commanders representing six police agencies, including one state police

agency, four metropolitan/urban police agencies, and one rural police agency.

Six fire agencies were represented, including five metropolitan/urban fire

agencies and 1 rural fire/public safety agency. All six fire agencies were paid,

professional staff; no volunteer fire agencies participated in the study. One state

92

transportation agency was represented. These agencies were dispersed

geographically across the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Sixty MLQ 5X-short surveys were sent electronically to incident

commanders as follows: 13 fire/EMS leaders, 41 police leaders, and 6

transportation leaders. Thirty-nine (62%) of the MLQ 5X-short electronic surveys

were completed by the incident commanders. Seven out of 13 (54%) fire/EMS

leaders completed the survey. Seven fire/EMS subordinates, peers, or

supervisors completed surveys. Thirty out of 41 (73%) police leaders completed

surveys. Eighteen police subordinates, peers, or supervisors completed surveys.

Three out of 6 (50%) transportation leaders completed surveys. No transportation

subordinates, peers, or supervisors completed surveys; thus, subordinate ratings

across all disciplines were excluded from analysis.

From the 60 responses received, 13 participants (21.7%) were incident

leaders from fire/EMS discipline. No respondent indicated a team performance

less than average or acceptable. Two (15%) respondents rated team

performance as average and 11 (85%) were rated as good (Table 1). One (8%)

respondent had 6-10 years of experience. Two (15%) respondents had 11-15

years experience. Ten (77%) respondents had 21 or more years of experience

(Table 1).

Tables 1-8 represent the demographic/self evaluation Likert-type scaled

questionnaire results which included organization type, perception of team/unit

performance, perception of incident difficulty, and number of like incidents the

commander has been tasked with handling previously. Tables 1-8 are cross

93

tabulations of the data, wherein the numbers in each cell represent the

frequency, or number of individuals, who responded accordingly. For example, in

Table 1, 2 respondents with 21+ years of experience rated their team

performance as average/acceptable, whereas 8 respondents with 21+ years of

experience rated their team performance as good.

Table 1

Cross-Tabulation of Experience and Team Performance in Fire/EMS Leaders

Team Performance

Years

Very

poor Poor

Average/

Acceptable Good

Very

good Total

0-5 0 0 0 0 0 0

6-10 0 0 0 1 0 1

11-15 0 0 0 2 0 2

16-20 0 0 0 0 0 0

Experience

21+ 0 0 2 8 0 10

Total 0 0 2 11 0 13

Within the fire/EMS discipline there were 4 (31%) respondents who

indicated the incidents were not difficult, 5 (38%) indicated the incidents were

slightly difficult, 3 (23%) indicated the incidents were difficult, and 1 (8%)

indicated the incident was very difficult (Table 2).

94

Table 2

Cross-Tabulation Indicating Team Performance and Incident Difficulty in

Fire/EMS Leaders

Fire/EMS Team Performance * Incident Difficulty Cross Tabulation

Incident Difficulty

Performance

Not

Difficult

Slightly

Difficult Difficult

Very

Difficult

Extremely

Difficult Total

Very Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0

Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0

Average 0 1 1 0 0 2

Good 4 4 2 1 0 11

Team

Performance

Very Good 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 4 5 3 1 0 13

From the 60 responses received, 41 participants (68.3%) were incident

leaders from the police discipline. No respondents indicated a team performance

less than average or acceptable. Eight (20%) leaders rated team performance as

average, 20 (49%) rated it as good, and 13 (31%) rated it as very good (Table 3).

Six (15%) respondents had 0-5 years of experience. Eight (20%) respondents

had 6-10 years experience. Three (7%) respondents had 11-15 years

experience. Five (12%) respondents had 16-20 years experience. Nineteen

(46%) respondents had 21 or more years of experience (Table 3).

95

Table 3

Cross-Tabulation of Experience and Team Performance in Police Leaders

Police Experience * Team Performance Cross Tabulation

Team Performance

Years

Very

Poor Poor Average/Acceptable Good

Very

Good Total

0-5 0 0 1 4 1 6

6-10 0 0 2 5 1 8

11-15 0 0 0 1 2 3

16-20 0 0 2 1 2 5

Experience

21+ 0 0 3 9 7 19

Total 0 0 8 20 13 41

Within the police discipline there were 14 (34%) respondents who

indicated the incidents were not difficult, 14 (34%) indicated the incidents were

slightly difficult, 8 (20%) indicated the incidents were difficult, 3 (7%) indicated the

incidents were very difficult, and 2 (5%) indicated the incidents were extremely

difficult (Table 4).

96

Table 4

Cross-Tabulation Indicating Team Performance and Incident Difficulty in Police

Leaders

Police Team Performance * Difficulty Cross Tabulation

Difficulty

Performance

Not

Difficult

Slightly

Difficult Difficult

Very

Difficult

Extremely

Difficult Total

Very Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0

Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0

Average 2 3 1 1 1 8

Good 8 7 2 2 1 20

Team

Performance

Very Good 4 4 5 0 0 13

Total 14 14 8 3 2 41

From the 60 responses received, 6 participants (10%) were incident

leaders from the transportation discipline. All 6 (100%) leaders indicated a team

performance as good (Table 5). Two (33%) respondents had 0-5 years of

experience. Four (67%) respondents had 21 or more years of experience (Table

5).

97

Table 5

Cross-Tabulation of Experience and Team Performance in Transportation

Leaders

Transportation Experience * Team Performance Cross Tabulation

Team Performance

Years

Very

Poor Poor Average/Acceptable Good

Very

Good Total

0-5 0 0 0 2 0 2

6-10 0 0 0 0 0 0

11-15 0 0 0 0 0 0

16-20 0 0 0 0 0 0

Experience

21+ 0 0 0 4 0 4

Total 0 0 0 6 0 6

Within the transportation discipline there was 1 (17%) respondent who

rated the incident as not difficult, 2 (33%) who rated it as slightly difficult, and 3

(50%) who rated it as difficult (Table 6).

98

Table 6

Cross-Tabulation Indicating Team Performance and Incident Difficulty in

Transportation Leaders

Transportation Team Performance * Difficulty Cross Tabulation

Difficulty

Performance

Not

Difficult

Slightly

Difficult Difficult

Very

Difficult

Extremely

Difficult Total

Very Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0

Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0

Average 0 0 0 0 0 0

Good 1 2 3 0 0 6

Team

Performance

Very Good 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1 2 3 0 0 6

From the 60 responses received, 13 participants (21.7%) were incident

leaders from fire/EMS discipline, 41 participants (68.3%) were incident leaders

from police discipline, and 6 participants (10%) were incident leaders from

transportation discipline. No respondents indicated a team performance less than

average or acceptable. Ten (17%) leaders rated team performance as average

or acceptable, 37 (61%) rated it as good, and 13 (22%) rated it as very good.

Eight (14%) respondents had 0-5 years of experience. Nine (15%) respondents

had 6-10 years experience. Five (8%) respondents had 11-15 years experience.

99

Five (8%) respondents had 16-20 years experience. Thirty-three (55%)

respondents had 21 or more years of experience (Table 7).

Table 7

Cross-Tabulation of Aggregated Experience and Team Performance in All

Disciplines

All Disciplines Experience * Team Performance Cross Tabulation

Team Performance

Years

Very

Poor Poor Average/Acceptable Good

Very

Good Total

0-5 0 0 1 6 1 8

6-10 0 0 2 6 1 9

11-15 0 0 0 3 2 5

16-20 0 0 2 1 2 5

Experience

21+ 0 0 5 21 7 33

Total 0 0 10 37 13 60

Within all disciplines there were 19 (32%) respondents who rated the

incident as not difficult, 21 (35%) who rated it as slightly difficult, 14 (23%) who

rated it as difficult, 4 (7%) who rated it as very difficult, and 2 (3%) who rated it as

extremely difficult (Table 8).

100

Table 8

Cross-Tabulation Indicating Aggregated Team Performance and Incident

Difficulty in All Disciplines

All Disciplines Team Performance * Difficulty Cross Tabulation

Difficulty

Performance

Not

Difficult

Slightly

Difficult Difficult

Very

Difficult

Extremely

Difficult Total

Very Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0

Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0

Average 2 4 2 1 1 10

Good 13 13 7 3 1 37

Team

Performance

Very Good 4 4 5 0 0 13

Total 19 21 14 4 2 60

Evaluation of Findings

Prior to analyzing the six research questions, all data were examined to

ensure the variables of interest were appropriately coded; no errors were found.

Furthermore, the dependent variables were examined for any unusual data

patterns (i.e., outliers) and none was found. Examination of the distributions of

the dependent variables revealed that all were normally distributed. Significant

outliers were considered to be any case that was 4 plus standard deviations from

the mean, per Tabachnik, Fidell, and Fidell (2006).

101

Research Question 1: What was the dominant leadership style used

during the incident by the on-scene fire/EMS incident commanders? To address

Research Question 1, descriptive statistics were used to determine what the

dominant leadership style of fire/EMS personnel used when responding to large

commercial vehicle fatal crashes. Results indicated that Individualized

Consideration, with an average score of 3.25 (SD = 0.58) was the dominant style

for fire/EMS personnel. This was followed closely by Inspirational Motivation, with

an average score of 3.21 (SD = 0.47). Laissez-faire evidenced the lowest

average score of 0.18 (SD = 0.24) followed by Management by Exception

Passive: 0.57 (SD = 0.64). Thus, the dominant leadership style utilized by

fire/EMS personnel was Individualized Consideration, which is a transformational

leadership style (Table 9).

102

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics for Fire /EMS Leadership Styles on the MLQ 5X-short

N M SD Skewness Kurtosis Leadership

Attribute Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Statistic Std.

Error

Idealized

Influence

(Attributed)

7 2.93 0.61 -0.10 0.79 -0.69 1.59

Idealized

Influence

(Behavior)

7 3.07 0.53 0.34 0.79 1.53 1.59

Inspirational

Motivation

7 3.21 0.47 0.72 0.79 -0.54 1.59

Individualized

Consideration

7 3.25 0.58 0.11 0.79 -1.92 1.59

Contingent

Reward

7 2.82 0.76 -1.83 0.79 3.55 1.59

Management

by

Exception

(Active)

7 1.64 0.85 0.34 0.79 -1.06 1.59

103

Table 9 (continued).

Descriptive Statistics for Fire /EMS Leadership Styles on the MLQ 5X-short

Leadership

Attribute

N M SD Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Statistic Std.

Error

Management

by

Exception

(Passive)

7 0.57 0.64 0.97 0.79 0.83 1.59

Laissez-faire 7 0.18 0.24 0.76 0.79 -1.69 1.59

Table 10 illustrates the leadership outcomes for the fire/EMS discipline.

The MLQ 5X-short has three outcome scales consisting of Extra Effort,

Effectiveness, and Satisfaction. Fire/EMS incident commanders had a dominant

outcome of Effectiveness (M = 3.11, SD = 0.38).

104

Table 10

Descriptive Statistics for Fire /EMS Leadership Outcomes on the MLQ 5X-short

N M SD Skewness Kurtosis Leadership

Outcomes Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Statistic Std.

Error

Extra Effort 7 2.93 0.54 0.05 0.79 -1.99 1.59

Effectiveness 7 3.11 0.38 0.19 0.79 1.64 1.59

Satisfaction 7 2.79 0.49 -0.28 0.79 0.04 1.59

Research Question 2: What was the dominant leadership style used

during the incident by the on-scene police incident commanders? To address

Research Question 2, descriptive statistics were used to determine what the

dominant leadership style of police personnel used when responding to fatal

large commercial vehicle crashes. Results indicated that Individualized

Consideration, with an average score of 2.88 (SD = 0.60), was the dominant style

for police personnel. This was followed closely by Idealized Influence (Attributed),

with an average score of 2.74 (SD = 0.78) and Contingent Reward, with an

average score of 2.74 (SD = 0.95). Laissez-faire evidenced the lowest average

score of 0.36 (SD = 0.50) followed by Management by Exception (Passive): 0.81

(SD = 0.65). Thus, the dominant leadership style utilized by police personnel was

Individualized Consideration, which is a transformational leadership style (Table

11).

105

Table 11

Descriptive Statistics for Police Leadership Styles on the MLQ 5X-short

N M SD Skewness Kurtosis Leadership

Attribute Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Statistic Std.

Error

Idealized

Influence

(Attributed)

30 2.74 0.78 -0.67 0.43 -0.11 0.83

Idealized

Influence

(Behavior)

30 2.70 0.73 -0.17 0.43 -0.58 0.83

Inspirational

Motivation

30 2.55 0.76 0.21 0.43 -0.77 0.83

Intellectual

Stimulation

30 2.60 0.85 -0.95 0.43 1.73 0.83

Individualized

Consideration

30 2.88 0.60 -0.46 0.43 0.47 0.83

Contingent

Reward

30 2.74 0.95 -0.69 0.43 -0.44 0.83

106

Table 11 (continued).

Descriptive Statistics for Police Leadership Styles on the MLQ 5X-short

N M SD Skewness Kurtosis Leadership

Attribute Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Statistic Std.

Error

Management

by

Exception

(Active)

30 1.86 0.77 -0.07 0.43 -1.01 0.83

Management

by

Exception

(Passive)

30 0.81 0.65 1.02 0.43 0.77 0.83

Laissez-faire 26 0.36 0.50 2.23 0.43 6.28 0.83

Table 12 illustrates the leadership outcomes for the police discipline.

Police incident commanders had a dominant outcome of Satisfaction (M = 3.17,

SD = 0.55).

107

Table 12

Descriptive Statistics for Police Leadership Outcomes on the MLQ 5X-short

N M SD Skewness Kurtosis Leadership

Outcomes Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Statistic Std.

Error

Extra Effort 29 2.71 0.63 -0.10 0.46 -0.03 0.89

Effectiveness 28 3.16 0.67 -0.23 0.43 -0.79 0.85

Satisfaction 25 3.17 0.55 -0.25 0.44 -0.39 0.86

Research Question 3: What was the dominant leadership style used

during the incident by the on-scene transportation incident commanders? To

address Research Question 3, descriptive statistics were used to determine what

the dominant leadership style of transportation personnel used when responding

to fatal large commercial vehicle crashes. Results indicated that Contingent

Reward with an average score of 3.17 (SD = 0.14) was the dominant style for

transportation personnel. This was followed closely by Idealized Influence

(Attributed), with an average score of 3.11 (SD = 0.19). Laissez-faire evidenced

the lowest average score of 0.22 (SD = 0.38) followed by Management by

Exception (Passive): 1.00 (SD = 0.87). Thus, the dominant leadership style

utilized by transportation personnel was Contingent Reward which is a

transactional leadership style (Table 13).

108

Table 13

Descriptive Statistics for Transportation Leadership Styles on the MLQ 5X-short

N M SD Skewness Kurtosis Leadership

Attribute Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Statistic Std.

Error

Idealized

Influence

(Attributed)

3 3.11 0.19 1.73 1.23 - -

Idealized

Influence

(Behavior)

3 3.00 0.25 0.00 1.23 - -

Inspirational

Motivation

3 2.92 0.14 -1.73 1.23 - -

Intellectual

Stimulation

3 2.92 0.14 -1.73 1.23 - -

Individualized

Consideration

3 2.92 0.14 -1.73 1.23 - -

Contingent

Reward

3 3.17 0.14 -1.73 1.23 - -

Management

by

Exception

(Active)

3 2.25 0.00 - - - -

109

Table 13 (continued).

Descriptive Statistics for Transportation Leadership Styles on the MLQ 5X-short

N M SD Skewness Kurtosis Leadership

Attribute Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Statistic Std.

Error

Management

by

Exception

(Passive)

3 1.00 0.87 1.73 1.23 - -

Laissez-faire 3 0.22 0.38 1.73 1.23 - -

Table 14 illustrates the leadership outcomes for the transportation

discipline. Transportation incident commanders had a dominant outcome of

Effectiveness (M = 3.25, SD = 0.43).

Table 14

Descriptive Statistics for Transportation Leadership Outcomes on the MLQ 5X-

short

N M SD Skewness Kurtosis Leadership

Outcomes Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Statistic Std.

Error

Extra Effort 3 3.11 0.50 0.94 1.23 - -

Effectiveness 3 3.25 0.43 1.73 1.23 - -

Satisfaction 3 3.00 0.00 - - - -

110

Table 15 illustrates the aggregated leadership styles for all disciplines.

Individualized Consideration was the dominant aggregated leadership style (M =

2.95, SD = 0.58). Laissez-faire was the least dominant (weakest) aggregated

leadership style (M = 0.32, SD = 0.45).

Table 15

Descriptive Statistics for Aggregated Leadership Styles on the MLQ 5X-short

N M SD Skewness Kurtosis Leadership

Attribute Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Statistic Std.

Error

Idealized

Influence

(Attributed)

40 2.80 0.73 -0.78 0.37 0.28 0.73

Idealized

Influence

(Behavior)

40 2.79 0.68 -0.33 0.37 -0.21 0.73

Inspirational

Motivation

40 2.70 0.73 -0.10 0.37 -0.65 0.73

Intellectual

Stimulation

40 2.71 0.78 -1.21 0.37 2.71 0.73

Individualized

Consideration

40 2.95 0.58 -0.37 0.37 0.57 0.73

Contingent

Reward

40 2.79 0.88 -0.89 0.37 -0.01 0.73

111

Table 15 (continued).

Descriptive Statistics for Aggregated Leadership Styles on the MLQ 5X-short

N M SD Skewness Kurtosis Leadership

Attribute Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Statistic Std.

Error

Management

by

Exception

(Active)

40 1.85 0.76 -0.14 0.37 -1.00 0.73

Management

by

Exception

(Passive)

40 0.78 0.65 0.95 0.37 0.40 0.73

Laissez-faire 40 0.32 0.45 2.37 0.37 7.55 0.73

Table 16 illustrates the aggregated leadership outcomes for all disciplines.

Effectiveness was the dominant aggregated leadership outcome (M = 3.15, SD =

0.60). Extra effort was the least dominant (weakest) aggregated leadership

outcome (M = 2.78, SD = 0.60).

112

Table 16

Descriptive Statistics for Aggregated Leadership Outcomes on the MLQ 5X-short

N M SD Skewness Kurtosis Leadership

Outcomes Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Statistic Std.

Error

Extra Effort 36 2.78 0.60 -0.19 0.39 -0.14 0.77

Effectiveness 39 3.15 0.60 -0.21 0.38 -0.45 0.74

Satisfaction 38 3.09 0.53 -0.11 0.38 -0.26 0.75

Table 17 illustrates the strongest (dominant) and weakest leadership style

for each discipline. Individualized Consideration was the dominant leadership

style for fire/EMS (M = 3.25, SD = 0.58). Individualized Consideration was the

dominant leadership style for police (M = 2.88, SD = 0.60). Contingent Reward

was the dominant leadership style for transportation (M = 3.17, SD = 0.14).

Laissez-faire was the least dominant (weakest) leadership style for all three

disciplines, Fire/EMS (M = 0.18, SD = 0.24), police (M = 0.36, SD = 0.50), and

transportation (M = 0.22, SD = 0.38).

113

Table 17

Descriptive Table Indicating Weakest and Strongest (Dominant) Leadership

Styles Among Fire/EMS, Police, and Transportation Incident Commanders

Fire/EMS * Police * Transportation Leadership Styles Descriptive Table

Leadership Style M SD

Weakest Laissez-faire 0.18 0.24 Fire/EMS

Strongest Individualized Consideration 3.25 0.58

Weakest Laissez-faire 0.36 0.50 Police

Strongest Individualized Consideration 2.88 0.60

Weakest Laissez-faire 0.22 0.38 Transportation

Strongest Contingent Reward 3.17 0.14

Table 18 illustrates the dominant leadership outcome for each discipline.

The dominant leadership outcome for fire/EMS was effective (M = 3.11, SD =

0.38). The dominant leadership outcome for transportation was effective (M =

3.25, SD = 0.43). The dominant leadership outcome for police was satisfaction

(M = 3.17, SD = 0.55). .

114

Table 18

Descriptive Table Indicating Dominant Leadership Outcome Among Fire/EMS,

Police, and Transportation Incident Commanders

Leadership Outcomes M SD

Fire/EMS Effectiveness 3.11 0.38

Police Satisfaction 3.17 0.55

Transportation Effectiveness 3.25 0.43

Research Question 4: What, if any, difference existed between the

leadership styles of the fire/EMS incident commanders compared to

commanders from other disciplines during similar incidents? The null (H1o)

hypothesis was responding fire/EMS commanders will not use different

leadership styles than do commanders from other disciplines. The alternative

(H1a) hypothesis was responding fire/EMS commanders will use different

leadership styles than do commanders from other disciplines. An independent

samples t test was conducted to determine whether fire/EMS commanders

differed from the other commanders in terms of their leadership style on the MLQ

5X-short. Levene’s test for equality of variances revealed that the assumption of

homogeneity of variance was violated for one of the leadership styles,

Inspirational Motivation; thus, the t test results for equal variances not assumed

was interpreted. Results revealed that fire/EMS commanders utilized more

Inspirational Motivation (M = 3.21, SD = 0.47) than did police and transportation

commanders (M = 2.59, SD = 0.74), t(38) = 2.16, p > .05 (Table 19). Thus,

115

fire/EMS personnel utilized a different leadership style than their police and

transportation counterparts. For Research Question 4, the null (H1o) hypothesis

was rejected: fire/EMS personnel utilized a different leadership style than their

police and transportation counterparts.

Table 19

Independent Samples t Test Results for Fire/EMS Versus Police and

Transportation Leadership Styles

Leadership

Attribute

Role N M SD t df p

Idealized

Influence

(Attributed)

Fire/EMS

Police &

Transportation

7

33

2.93

2.77

0.61

0.76

0.51

38

0.62

Idealized

Influence

(Behavior)

Fire/EMS

Police &

Transportation

7

33

3.07

2.73

0.53

0.70

1.21

38

0.23

Inspirational

Motivation

Fire/EMS

Police &

Transportation

7

33

3.21

2.59

0.47

0.74

2.16

2.89

38

13.31

0.04*

Intellectual

Stimulation

Fire/EMS

Police &

Transportation

7

33

3.12

2.63

0.40

0.82

1.51

38

0.14

116

Table 19 (continued).

Independent Samples t Test Results for Fire/EMS Versus Police and

Transportation Leadership Styles

Leadership

Attribute

Role N M SD t df p

Individualized

Consideration

Fire/EMS

Police &

Transportation

7

33

3.25

2.89

0.58

0.57

1.52

38

0.14

Contingent

Reward

Fire/EMS

Police &

Transportation

7

33

2.82

2.78

0.76

0.91

0.12

38

0.91

Management

by

Exception

(Active)

Fire/EMS

Police &

Transportation

7

33

1.64

1.89

0.85

0.74

-0.79

38

0.44

Management

by

Exception

(Passive)

Fire/EMS

Police &

Transportation

7

33

0.57

0.83

0.64

0.65

-0.94

38

0.35

Laissez-faire Fire/EMS

Police &

Transportation

7

33

0.18

0.35

0.24

0.49

-0.88

38

0.38

*Denotes significant t value

117

Table 20 illustrates the Independent Samples t test results for fire/EMS

versus police and transportation leadership outcomes. Based on Independent

Samples t test results, the dominant leadership outcome for fire/EMS was

Effective (M = 3.11, SD = 0.38) when compared with police and transportation (M

= 3.16, SD = 0.65).

Table 20

Independent Samples t Test Results for Fire/EMS Versus Police and

Transportation Leadership Outcomes

Leadership

Outcome

Role N M SD t df p

Extra Effort Fire/EMS

Police &

Transportation

7

29

2.93

2.75

0.54

0.62

0.71

34

0.48

Effectiveness Fire/EMS

Police &

Transportation

7

32

3.11

3.16

0.38

0.65

-0.22

37

0.83

Satisfaction Fire/EMS

Police &

Transportation

7

31

2.79

3.16

0.49

0.52

-1.71

36

0.10

*Denotes significant t value

Research Question 5: What, if any, difference existed between the

leadership styles of the police incident commanders compared to commanders

from other disciplines during similar incidents? The null (H2o) hypothesis was

118

responding police commanders will not use different leadership styles than

commanders from other disciplines. The alternative (H2a) hypothesis was

responding police commanders will use different leadership styles than

commanders from other disciplines. An independent samples t test was

conducted to determine whether police commanders differed from the other

commanders in terms of their leadership style on the MLQ 5X-short. Levene’s

test for equality of variances revealed that the assumption of homogeneity of

variance was violated for two of the leadership styles, Inspirational Motivation

and Intellectual Stimulation; thus, the t test results for equal variances not

assumed was interpreted. Results revealed that police commanders utilized less

Inspirational Motivation (M = 2.55, SD = 0.76) than fire/EMS and transportation

commanders (M = 3.13, SD = 0.41), t(29.39) = -3.00, p > .05. Similarly, police

commanders utilized less Intellectual Stimulation (M = 2.60, SD = 0.85) than

fire/EMS and transportation commanders (M = 3.05, SD = 0.35), t(36.02) = -2.38,

p > .05 (Table 21). Thus, police personnel utilized a different leadership style

than their fire/EMS and transportation counterparts. For Research Question 5,

the null (H2o) hypothesis was rejected: police personnel utilized a different

leadership style than their fire/EMS and transportation counterparts.

119

Table 21

Independent Samples t Test Results for Police Versus Fire/EMS and

Transportation Leadership Styles

Leadership

Attribute

Role N M SD t df p

Idealized

Influence

(Attributed)

Police

Fire/EMS &

Transportation

30

10

2.74

2.98

0.79

0.51

-0.91

38

0.37

Idealized

Influence

(Behavior)

Police

Fire/EMS &

Transportation

30

10

2.70

3.05

0.73

0.45

-1.41

38

0.17

Inspirational

Motivation

Police

Fire/EMS &

Transportation

30

10

2.55

3.13

0.76

0.41

-2.25

-3.00

38

29.39

0.03*

Intellectual

Stimulation

Police

Fire/EMS &

Transportation

30

10

2.60

3.05

0.85

0.35

-1.63

-2.38

38

36.02

0.11

0.02*

Individualized

Consideration

Police

Fire/EMS &

Transportation

30

10

2.88

3.15

0.60

0.50

-1.26

38

0.22

Contingent

Reward

Police

Fire/EMS &

Transportation

30

10

2.74

2.93

0.95

0.65

-0.56

38

0.57

120

Table 21 (continued).

Independent Samples t Test Results for Police Versus Fire/EMS and

Transportation Leadership Styles

Leadership

Attribute

Role N M SD t df p

Management by

Exception

(Active)

Police

Fire/EMS &

Transportation

30

10

1.86

1.83

0.77

0.76

-0.11

38

0.91

Management by

Exception

(Passive)

Police

Fire/EMS &

Transportation

30

10

0.81

0.70

0.65

0.70

0.45

38

0.65

Laissez-faire Police

Fire/EMS &

Transportation

30

10

0.36

0.19

0.50

0.27

1.00

38

0.32

*Denotes significant t value

Table 22 illustrates the Independent Samples t test results for police

versus fire/EMS and transportation leadership outcomes. Based on Independent

Samples t test results, the dominant leadership outcome for police was

Satisfaction (M = 3.17, SD = 0.55) when compared with fire/EMS and

transportation (M = 2.85, SD = 0.41).

121

Table 22

Independent Samples t Test Results for Police Versus Fire/EMS and

Transportation Leadership Outcomes

Leadership Outcome Role N M SD t df p

Extra Effort Police

Fire/EMS &

Transportation

26

10

2.71

2.98

0.63

0.51

-1.25

34

0.22

Effectiveness Police

Fire/EMS &

Transportation

29

10

3.16

3.15

0.67

0.38

0.02

37

0.98

Satisfaction Police

Fire/EMS &

Transportation

28

10

3.17

2.85

0.55

0.41

1.69

36

0.09

*Denotes significant t value

Research Question 6: What, if any, difference existed between the

leadership styles of the transportation incident commanders compared to

commanders from other disciplines during similar incidents? The null (H3o)

hypothesis was responding transportation/public works commanders will not use

different leadership styles than commanders from other disciplines. The

alternative (H3a) hypothesis was responding transportation/public works

commanders will use different leadership styles than commanders from other

disciplines. An independent samples t test was conducted to determine whether

transportation commanders differed from the other commanders in terms of their

122

leadership style on the MLQ 5X-short. Levene’s test for equality of variances

revealed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated for two of

the leadership styles, Contingent Reward and Management by Exception; thus,

the t test results for equal variances not assumed was interpreted. Results

revealed that transportation commanders utilized more Contingent Reward (M =

3.17, SD = 0.14) than did fire/EMS and police commanders (M = 2.75, SD =

0.90), t(22.37) = 2.42, p > .05. Similarly, transportation commanders utilized

more Management by Exception (M = 2.25, SD = 0.00) than did fire/EMS and

police commanders (M = 1.82, SD = 0.78), t(36.00) = 3.40, p > .05 (Table 23).

Thus, transportation personnel utilized a different leadership style than their

fire/EMS and police counterparts. For Research Question 6, the null (H3o)

hypothesis was rejected: transportation personnel utilized a different leadership

style than their fire/EMS and police counterparts.

123

Table 23

Independent Samples t Test Results for Transportation Versus Police and

Fire/EMS Leadership Styles

Leadership

Attribute

Role N M SD t df p

Idealized

Influence

(Attributed)

Transportation

Police & Fire/EMS

3

37

3.11

2.77

0.19

0.75

0.76

38

0.45

Idealized

Influence

(Behavior)

Transportation

Police & Fire/EMS

3

37

3.00

2.77

0.25

0.71

0.55

38

0.59

Inspirational

Motivation

Transportation

Police & Fire/EMS

3

37

2.92

2.68

0.14

0.76

0.54

38

0.59

Intellectual

Stimulation

Transportation

Police & Fire/EMS

3

37

2.92

2.69

0.14

0.81

0.47

38

0.64

Individualized

Consideration

Transportation

Police & Fire/EMS

3

37

2.92

2.95

0.14

0.61

-0.10

38

0.92

Contingent

Reward

Transportation

Police & Fire/EMS

3

37

3.17

2.75

0.14

0.90

0.78

2.42

38

22.37

0.44

0.02*

Management

by

Exception

(Active)

Transportation

Police & Fire/EMS

3

37

2.25

1.82

0.00

0.78

0.96

3.40

38

36.00

0.35

0.01*

124

Table 23 (continued).

Independent Samples t Test Results for Transportation Versus Police and

Fire/EMS Leadership Styles

Leadership

Attribute

Role N M SD t df p

Management

by

Exception

(Passive)

Transportation

Police & Fire/EMS

3

37

1.00

0.76

0.87

0.64

0.60

38

0.47

Laissez-faire Transportation

Police & Fire/EMS

3

37

0.22

0.32

0.38

0.46

-0.37

38

0.71

*Denotes significant t value

Table 24 illustrates the Independent Samples t test results for

transportation versus police and fire/EMS leadership outcomes. Based on the

Independent Samples t test results, the dominant leadership outcome for

transportation was Effectiveness (M = 3.25, SD = 0.43) when compared with

fire/EMS and police (M = 3.15, SD = 0.62).

125

Table 24

Independent Samples t Test Results for Transportation Versus Police and

Fire/EMS Leadership Outcomes

Leadership

Outcome

Role N M SD t df p

Extra Effort Transportation

Police & Fire/EMS

3

33

3.11

2.75

0.51

0.61

0.98

34

0.33

Effectiveness Transportation

Police & Fire/EMS

3

36

3.25

3.15

0.43

0.62

0.28

37

0.78

Satisfaction Transportation

Police & Fire/EMS

3

35

3.00

3.10

0.00

0.55

-0.30

36

0.77

*Denotes significant t value

Summary

The findings of the perceptions of commanders of large scale vehicle fatal

crashes were discussed in this chapter. Respondents generally assessed the

difficulty level of these incidents as not difficult or slightly difficult. No respondent

rated his or her team performance as poor or very poor. Descriptive statistics to

identify the weakest and strongest (dominant) leadership styles indicated all

three disciplines ranked lowest in the Laissez-faire leadership style. Fire/EMS

and police commanders’ strongest (dominant) leadership style was Individualized

Consideration, which is a transformational leadership style. Transportation

commanders’ strongest (dominant) leadership style was Contingent Reward,

which is a transactional leadership style. Independent samples t tests revealed

126

significant differences between the agencies in terms of the individual leadership

styles.

127

CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS

The problem that was addressed using the mixed methodology study was

that it is currently unknown whether there is a dominant leadership style

associated with incident commanders during an incident. The problem this

creates is that it cannot be determined if a UC is affected positively or negatively

by different or specific leadership styles[0]. According to Buck et al. (2006), the

ICS, as set out in the NIMS, will not likely work as intended (Lester, 2007). The

ICS provides a universal response model to all incidents; however, it is

recognized that ICS works best with firefighting organizations and is less

successful with police, public health, and public work-style agencies. The fire

service personnel have long worked in a team environment as opposed to the

police who typically work and handle calls for service alone. Transportation

agency personnel have typically found themselves on the periphery of

emergency response and are normally in an assist mode (Buck, 2004, Buck et

al., 2006; Cardwell & Cooney, 2000; Helman, 2004; Reardon, 2005; Walsh et al.,

2005; Weiss, 2002). Social relationships are essential to the success of ICS

(Walsh et al., 2005). Along with social relationships come the styles and

attributes of leadership (Avolio et al., 2003; Boin & Hart, 2003).

Lester (2007) stated that it will take transformational leadership coupled

with NIMS to achieve success during all phases of a disaster. Guidelines have

been provided regarding how to prepare for and respond to incidents in a uniform

manner throughout the country (Bourne, 2005; Perry, 2003). What appear to be

lacking are guidelines on how to lead during such incidents. Team or group

128

leadership has been the subject of much research (Avolio et al., 2003). What

remains to be examined in detail is individual, group, and/or team leadership

during a real world incident. Even in the limited number of studies completed

regarding team or group leadership, the focus has been on groups who have

been established and who function in a less than hazardous environment (Avolio

et al., 2003; King, 2002).

The lack of cooperation, communication, and coordination between the

fire and police service on 9/11 are not unique. Molino (2006) stated law-

enforcement and other responders disciplines have aggressively competed for

priorities and resources during the management of emergency incidents.

Unfortunately, such competition, though maybe only subconscious, has

demonstrated weakness in the responding agencies abilities to efficiently

manage incidents (Bitto, 2007; Canton, 2007).

The purpose of this mixed methodology dissertation study was to examine

the prevalence of transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership

styles among incident commanders during incidents that utilized a UC approach

within the Commonwealth of Virginia and investigate differences between

disciplines in leadership style. The disciplines that were investigated included

police, fire/EMS, and transportation or public works organizations. An

examination of IC leadership styles may provide guidance to future commanders

of incidents to increase the level of success during a crisis incident.

The data from the study provided information regarding the prevalence of

a particular type of leadership style commonly used by commanders during

129

incidents. A style pattern was found within a single type responding discipline or

across disciplines. Furthermore, data may be derived that illustrates the use of

one particular style over another, or at least the uniform use of one style, that

either enhances, detracts, or has no effect on the success of a particular incident.

The research study was a non-experimental design. The study did not

have a random assignment of people to groups. While it may not be a strength, it

was a necessity. One weakness caused by this lack of randomness was the

inability to control confounding extraneous variables (Champion, 2006; Hagan,

2006). The non-experimental design was necessary due to the nature of the

incidents being examined. Conceptualization of the study did not call for a

stimulus hence there was no need for either randomness or a control group. The

design of this study necessitated natural situations, which would have been

difficult to simulate in an artificial environment (Champion, 2006). This non-

experimental design was not artificial in nature, which could have hindered

generalizability. A weakness of the design was that there was no control group.

The study was designed to depict the characteristics of what was

observed, determine settings for investigation, target particular features involving

those settings for special attention, and describe in various ways the findings,

and attempt to reveal possible relationships between variables, which allows for

further investigation. The research design was exploratory in nature because so

little was known from previous experiments or studies about the topic (Stewart &

Manz, 1995).

130

According to Collard (2002) and Miller (2006), there will be unique

circumstances for each situation such as the complexities and hazards involved in

the particular situation and the level of experience and expertise of the followers

involved. These variables were not examined; however, similar incidents were

chosen all of which provided similar levels of complexity and stressors (e.g., Burkle

& Hayden, 2001). There were several limitations to this study. Transformational

leadership lacks conceptual clarity. The approach can be seen as too simplistic in

some respects. Arguments have been made that the approach relies too much on

personality and qualitative analysis (Bass, 1990; Ohman, 2000; Smith et al., 2004;

Yukl et al., 2002). Yukl (1989) discussed the limitations of survey research by way

of questionnaire-correlated research. Because of the limitations of survey

research, some leadership researchers have turned more toward qualitative

descriptive methods such as interviews, intensive case studies, and observation.

Qualitative-descriptive research is susceptible to bias and distortions as is other

types of research. Prior researchers primarily used the survey method, which is

dependent on the content of the survey in assuring the internal validity of the

findings. Hence, multiple methods in researching leadership reduces

methodological errors and increases the operational effectiveness and validity,

both internal and external of the study. Research-involving leadership is still

heavily weighted toward questionnaires and quantitative approaches.

According to Bass (1990) and Yukl (2006), studies have been undertaken

using the factor analysis to determine the construct validity of the MLQ 5X-short.

Support was seen showing the difference between transformational and

131

transactional leadership. Yet, as with other leadership theories, weaknesses

were found. The MLQ 5X-short has been refined in an attempt to strengthen its

validity. Transformational leadership is considered effective in any situation

(Bass, 1998; Bass & Riggio, 2006). While universally relevant, it does not mean

that transformational leadership is effective in all situations. Situational variables

may increase or decrease the success of transformational leadership (Kearney &

Gebert, 2009; Lievens et al., 1997; Smith et al., 2004; Torpman, 2004; Tucker &

Russell, 2004; Yukl et al., 2002).

Every attempt was made to select incidents with all necessary criteria,

which occurred within a 1-year period. A weakness of the study was the elapsed

time from the incident to the data collection from the leaders. Another concern was

the ability to gather enough responses from the subjects to make the data

meaningful. Another limitation of the study was that no volunteer fire fighting

agency leaders participated in the MLQ 5X-short portion of the research, this

decreased the generalizability. Having to exclude subordinates, peers, and

supervisors evaluations was another limitation. Many incident commanders had no

one complete MLQ 5X-short evaluations on them. Further, for t-test purposes

these fragmented independent evaluations had to be excluded for statistical

purposes. A final limitation of this study was the limited response to the MLQ 5X-

short survey in several ways. A higher overall response, more responses from on

scene subordinates, and specifically more fire and especially more transportation

incident commander responses would have strengthened the generalizability of the

research.

132

The completion of the questionnaires was voluntary. Appendix B contains

the informed consent form cover letter. This research involved no deception and

was not experimental in nature. The information gathered was confidential.

Confidentiality was maintained by assigning specific groups of leaders to incident

numbers and assigning each leader in the incident an identifying number. The

various incident commanders and incidents were not identified by name or other

means that would have divulged their identity or specific agency. The risks

involved in this research were nominal whereas the benefits were significant.

Informed consent was obtained prior to proceeding with each incident

commander.

The remainder of this chapter will address, in detail, the implications the

study may have. Further, recommendations will be made based on the findings

regarding future research and observations that may be of use to practitioners,

policymakers, and researchers. Finally, concluding remarks will be made.

Implications

The problem that was addressed using the mixed methodology study was

that it is currently unknown whether there is a dominant leadership style

associated with incident commanders during an incident. The problem this

creates is that it cannot be determined if a UC is affected positively or negatively

by different or specific leadership styles[0]. According to Buck et al. (2006), the

ICS as set out in the NIMS, will not likely work as intended (Lester, 2007). The

ICS provides a universal response model to all incidents; however, it is

recognized that ICS works best with firefighting organizations and is less

133

successful with police, public health, and public work-style agencies. The fire

service has long worked in a team environment as opposed to police who

typically work and handle calls for service alone. Transportation agencies have

typically found themselves on the periphery of emergency response and normally

in an assist mode (Buck, 2004; Buck et al., 2006; Cardwell & Cooney, 2000;

Helman, 2004; Reardon, 2005; Walsh, et al., 2005; Weiss, 2002).

Social relationships are essential to the success of ICS (Walsh et al.,

2005). Along with social relationships come the styles and attributes of

leadership (Avolio, et al., 2003; Boin & Hart, 2003). Hurricane Katrina is cited as

a prime example of the wrong combination of ICS preparedness, leadership

differences, and politics, which created inadequate decision-making and a poor

response (Garcia, 2006; Lester, 2007). Prior to delving into the six specific

research questions posed it would be instructive to briefly discuss several

general findings and or observations from the initial phase of the research.

Of the 107 fatalities, 87 (81%) of the investigators were contacted to verify

that the commercial vehicle fatality crash under examination fit the definition used

for the research. Numerous attempts were made to contact all 107 investigators.

In three cases the crash data was found to be incorrect. Two investigators who

had been listed did not work the crashes. In another case, the vehicle was

improperly listed as a commercial vehicle. When the investigators were asked if a

UC was used during the incident 39 (49%) said yes, 40 (51%) said no. Each

investigator was asked if they understood the UC concept based on required

NIMS training. Each investigator understood. The same question was framed

134

another way. Each investigator was asked if at least two agencies leaders

worked together during the incident. This time 70 (89%) of the investigators said

yes and 9 (11%) responded no. When discussing the different responses with the

investigators, the primary reason for the higher response to working together

versus wanting to call it a true UC was a matter of semantics mainly because no

one officially declared there was a UC in operation. It is important to note that in

11% of the incidents examined agencies leaders did not work together. Within

this 11% in two of these incidents the circumstances did not dictate or require a

team effort since the incident created minimal impact and most of the

investigation was after the fact. Based on the preliminary research 71 (66%)

crashes fit the criteria for further examination. Those cases where neither a UC

nor team approach was used were excluded from further consideration.

Based on the preliminary interviews with the investigating officers, a

member of the fire/EMS and police disciplines was on scene in a leadership role

in all 71 incidents. There were 19 (27%) instances where a transportation leader

was present in a leadership role. In almost all incidents transportation workers

were present but in only 19 instances was someone identified in a leadership

role. Of importance to this research was the fact that in the great majority of

cases the police investigator did not know who the various leaders were by

name. In most cases the investigator could say which agency had the lead but in

only a few cases did they know the leader by name. The leaders’ names were

known more often in the rural settings versus urban settings. In two instances

transportation leaders were acting in a dual leadership role as fire/EMS and

135

transportation leader. However, in 31 (44%) of the incidents the investigating

officer was also the police leader on scene. In 40 (56%) of the incidents a police

supervisor arrived and took over the leadership of the overall incident in the UC.

In each incident the fire/EMS and transportation leaders were all actually

supervisors within their agencies. Only two other leaders were identified from

other disciplines, and neither leader responded to the requests to participate.

In 51 (63%) instances the highway was closed in at least one direction.

The average (mean) closure time was 3.2 hours. The closure time by mode was

2 hours and by median 3 hours. The longest closure was 12 hours. Each crash

averaged one fatality. The time of closure is important for two reasons. First,

closing the highway adds anxiety and hazard for everyone. However, knowing

how long the highway was closed does not equate to the total duration of the

event. This is a limitation to this research. In no instance did a respondent score

team performance as very poor or poor. Ten (17%) respondents rated team

performance as average or acceptable, 37 (61%) rated team performance as

good, and 13 (22%) rated team performance as very good. In response to

incident difficulty, nineteen (32%) of the respondents stated the incident was not

difficult, 21 (35%) classified the incident as slightly difficult, 14 (23%) classified

the incident as difficult, 4 (7%) classified the incident as very difficult, and 2 (3%)

classified the incident as extremely difficult.

To address Research Question 1, what was the dominant leadership style

used during an incident by the on-scene fire/EMS incident commanders,

descriptive statistics was used. There were 7 on-scene fire/EMS incident

136

commanders who replied to the survey. Results indicated that Individualized

Consideration with an average score of 3.25 (SD = 0.58) was the dominant style

for fire/EMS personnel. This was followed closely by Inspirational Motivation, with

an average score of 3.21 (SD = 0.47). Laissez-faire evidenced the lowest

average score of 0.18 (SD = 0.24), followed by Management by Exception

Passive: 0.57 (SD = 0.64). Fire/EMS incident commanders had a dominant

outcome of Effectiveness (M = 3.11, SD = 0.38). Thus, the dominant leadership

style utilized by fire/EMS personnel was Individualized Consideration, which is a

transformational leadership style (Table 9).

To address Research Question 2, what was the dominant leadership style

used during an incident by the on-scene police incident commanders, descriptive

statistics were used. There were a total of thirty (30) on-scene police incident

commanders who replied to the survey. Results indicated that Individualized

Consideration with an average score of 2.88 (SD = 0.60) was the dominant style

for police personnel. This was followed closely by Idealized Influence (Attributed),

with an average score of 2.74 (SD = 0.78) and Contingent Reward, with an

average score of 2.74 (SD = 0.95). Laissez-faire evidenced the lowest average

score of 0.36 (SD = 0.50) followed by Management by Exception (Passive): 0.81

(SD = 0.65). Police incident commanders had a dominant outcome of

Satisfaction (M = 3.17, SD = 0.55). Thus, the dominant leadership style utilized

by police personnel was Individualized Consideration, which is a transformational

leadership style (Table 11).

137

To address Research Question 3, what was the dominant leadership style

used during an incident by the on-scene transportation incident commanders,

descriptive statistics were used. There were a total of three (3) on-scene

transportation incident commanders who replied to the survey. Results indicated

that Contingent Reward with an average score of 3.17 (SD = 0.14) was the

dominant style for transportation personnel. This was followed closely by

Idealized Influence (Attributed), with an average score of 3.11 (SD = 0.19).

Laissez-faire evidenced the lowest average score of 0.22 (SD = 0.38) followed by

Management by Exception (Passive): 1.00 (SD = 0.87). Transportation incident

commanders had a dominant outcome of Effectiveness (M = 3.25, SD = 0.43).

Thus, the dominant leadership style utilized by transportation personnel is

Contingent Reward, which is a transactional leadership style (Table 13).

To address Research Question 4, what if any, difference existed between

the leadership styles of the fire/EMS incident commanders compared to

commanders from other disciplines during similar incidents, inferential statistics

were used. The null (H1o) hypothesis was responding fire/EMS commanders will

not use different leadership styles than do commanders from other disciplines.

The alternative (H1a) hypothesis was responding fire/EMS commanders will use

different leadership styles than do commanders from other disciplines. A series

of independent samples t tests was conducted to determine whether fire/EMS

commanders differed from the other commanders in terms of their leadership

style on the MLQ 5X-short. Levene’s test for equality of variances revealed that

the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated for one of the leadership

138

styles, Inspirational Motivation; thus, the t test results for equal variances not

assumed was interpreted. Results revealed that fire/EMS commanders utilized

more Inspirational Motivation (M = 3.21, SD = 0.47) than did police and

transportation commanders (M = 2.59, SD = 0.74), t(38) = 2.16, p > .05 (Table

19). Thus, fire/EMS personnel utilized a different leadership style than their police

and transportation counterparts. For Research Question 4, the null (H1o)

hypothesis was rejected: fire/EMS personnel utilized a different leadership style

than their police and transportation counterparts.

To address Research Question 5, what if any, difference existed between

the leadership styles of the police incident commanders compared to

commanders from other disciplines during similar incidents, inferential statistics

were used. The null (H2o) hypothesis was responding police commanders will not

use different leadership styles than do commanders from other disciplines. The

alternative (H2a) hypothesis was responding police commanders will use different

leadership styles than do commanders from other disciplines. A series of

independent samples t tests was conducted to determine whether police

commanders differed from the other commanders in terms of their leadership

style on the MLQ 5X-short. Levene’s test for equality of variances revealed that

the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated for two of the leadership

styles, Inspirational Motivation and Intellectual Stimulation; thus, the t test results

for equal variances not assumed was interpreted. Results revealed that police

commanders utilized less Inspirational Motivation (M = 2.55, SD = 0.76) than did

fire/EMS and transportation commanders (M = 3.13, SD = 0.41), t(29.39) = -3.00,

139

p > .05. Similarly, police commanders utilized less Intellectual Stimulation (M =

2.60, SD = 0.85) than did fire/EMS commanders (M = 3.05, SD = 0.35), t(36.02)

= -2.38, p > .05 (Table 21). Thus, police personnel utilized a different leadership

style than their fire/EMS and transportation counterparts. For Research Question

5, the null (H2o) hypothesis was rejected: police personnel utilized a different

leadership style than their fire/EMS and transportation counterparts.

To address Research Question 6, what if any, difference existed between

the leadership styles of the transportation incident commanders compared to

commanders from other disciplines during similar incidents, inferential statistics

were used. The null (H3o) hypothesis was responding transportation/public works

commanders will not use different leadership styles than do commanders from

other disciplines. The alternative (H3a) hypothesis was responding

transportation/public works commanders will use different leadership styles than

do commanders from other disciplines. A series of independent samples t tests

was conducted to determine whether police commanders differed from the other

commanders in terms of their leadership style on the MLQ 5X-short. Levene’s

test for equality of variances revealed that the assumption of homogeneity of

variance was violated for two of the leadership styles, Contingent Reward and

Management by Exception; thus, the t test results for equal variances not

assumed was interpreted. Results revealed that transportation commanders

utilized more Contingent Reward (M = 3.17, SD = 0.14) than did fire/EMS and

police commanders (M = 2.75, SD = 0.90), t(38.00) = 0.78, p > .05. Similarly,

transportation commanders utilized more Management by Exception (M = 2.25,

140

SD = 0.00) than did fire/EMS or police commanders (M = 1.82, SD = 0.78),

t(38.00) = 0.96, p > .05 (Table 23). Thus, transportation personnel utilized a

different leadership style than their fire/EMS and police counterparts. For

Research Question 6, the null (H3o) hypothesis was rejected: transportation

personnel utilized a different leadership style than their fire/EMS and police

counterparts.

According to Bass (1990) and Yukl (2006), transactional and

transformational leadership are not and should not be mutually exclusive.

Transformational behaviors include idealized influence (attributed), idealized

influence (behavior), individualized considerations, inspirational motivation, and

intellectual stimulation. Transactional behaviors include contingent reward,

management by exception (active), and management by exception (passive).

The dominant leadership style used by the on-scene fire/EMS incident

commanders was Individualized Consideration followed closely by Inspirational

Motivation. The dominant leadership style used by the on-scene police incident

commanders was Individualized Consideration followed by Idealized Influence

(Attributed). The dominant leadership style used by the on-scene transportation

incident commanders was Contingent Reward followed by Idealized Influence

(Attributed). Hence, the dominant leadership style used by the on-scene fire/EMS

and police incident commanders was transformational. The dominant leadership

style used by the on-scene transportation incident commanders was

transactional. The dominant outcome for fire/EMS and transportation was

141

Effectiveness, and for police it was Satisfaction. Of significant interest was the

leadership style least prominent among all three disciplines was Laissez-faire.

When using descriptive statistics the mean indicated both fire/EMS and

police incident commanders used Individualized Consideration, which is

transformational leadership. However, when testing the hypothesis using the t-

test, the finding that fire/EMS and police used the same style was rejected based

on statistical differences. Transportation commanders’ dominant style was

Contingent Reward, which is a transactional style. Bass (1990) and Yukl (2006)

stated that transactional and transformational leadership are not and should not

be mutually exclusive. The data across disciplines supports this assertion.

Lester (2007) surmised that leadership style plays a key role in the level of

success of any endeavor especially activities involving emergency response.

Lester stated that it will take transformational leadership coupled with NIMS to

achieve success during all phases of a disaster. Guidelines have been provided

regarding how to prepare for and respond to incidents in a uniform manner

throughout the country (Bourne, 2005; Perry, 2003). The results of this study

buttress Lester’s assertion regarding leadership style and the level of success.

The data indicated that the two disciplines with the highest level of involvement

both practiced transformational leadership styles. The transportation discipline

practiced transactional leadership. The data further reflects that Laissez-faire

leadership was the least dominant leadership style. Couple this with the limited

amount of road closure time, which is always a goal for safety, along with the fact

that not one incident commander rated team performance below the acceptable

142

or average level and in fact 83% rated team performance as good or very good.

These results are in keeping with a dominant usage of transformational

leadership style behaviors and the fact that Laissez-faire leadership was the least

dominant or prevalent of all styles used (Bass 1998; Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Like Lester (2007), Bass and Riggio (2006) found merit with the use of

transformational leadership during crises. Bass and Riggio stated that, unlike

transactional leaders who focus on short-term outcomes and may be more likely

to make rushed and poorly thought-out decisions, transformational leaders are

apt to make more thought out and appropriate decisions. Conversely,

transformational leaders are more likely to defer from making premature

decisions. The results of this study tend to refute the assertions made by Bass

(1990), Northouse (2001), Wren (1995), and Yukl (2006) that most leaders

practice transactional, directing, or authority-compliance style leadership during a

crisis because of the urgency of the incident.

The significance of the results of this research is that now there is a better

idea of the various leadership styles used at the scene of emergencies by the

leaders of responding agencies. Even though the police and fire used

transformational style leadership most often and transportation leaders used the

transactional style of leadership most often, team performance was good or very

good across all incidents. As shown in the literature review, transformational and

transactional leadership can be blended dependent upon the circumstances and

transformational leadership does not always have to be the prevalent style in all

cases. On its face, the results confirm that transformational possibly coupled with

143

transactional leadership offers better results than Lassize-faire leadership. The

other significant fact derived from the research is that the Laissez-faire

leadership style was the least used style. This bodes well for leadership in

general and specifically for emergency response style leadership. Lassize-faire

leadership style is actually non-leadership. Transformational leadership possibly

mixed with transactional leadership is what is needed in almost all cases to

effectively and efficiently manage and resolve emergencies (Bass, 1998; Bass &

Riggio, 2006).

Another significant fact derived from the research was that all agencies

worked well together or better than average in the great majority of incidents. The

research also indicated that transportation appeared to play more of a support

role in the vast majority of incidents. Transportation leadership was active in a

small number of incidents. According to Densten (2003), those who use

transactional leadership pursue a cost-benefit or economic exchange to meet

current material and psychic needs of their employees in return for expected

effort. Contingent reward, which represents proactive leadership behaviors that

link reward and effort through negotiation, is a type of transactional leadership

(Palmer et al., 2001). Note that the transportation leaders dominant leadership

style was Contingent reward which is a transactional style. The study appeared

to confirm the perceived leadership style and role of the fire discipline. The

results of this study somewhat contradict existing literature regarding the police

leadership style and role in emergencies. The police appeared to function well in

a team situation. The results of the study appeared to validate the style and

144

function of transportation agencies in that in most cases they appeared to

function in a support role.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are

made regarding practical applications involving the four phases of emergency

management with emphasis on the response and recovery phases of incident

management and leadership.

1. Transportation style disciplines should examine their legal and

functional duties during incidents and evaluate if their current dominant

leadership style and the current support role-played is conducive to their needs

and responsibilities. In this same vein, the police discipline should monitor or

consider the need to have a supervisor respond to be the police incident

commander and free up the investigator to focus solely on the investigation if the

circumstances dictate (Atwater & Bass, 1994).

2. All responder disciplines should continue to foster a unified and or

team approach to all such incidents wherein at least two or more disciplines

come together. There appears to already exist a foundation of transformational

with a mix of transactional leadership being applied. Building upon this

foundation should only enhance the overall team performance (Bitto, 2007).

3. All responding disciplines should continue to work closely together

during all phases of emergency management so when the emergency does take

place there is a strong air of familiarity and a bond of trust exists prior to the

incident. In most of the incidents under examination, the investigators, who were

145

often the leader, did not know or recall the other leaders names. Training,

exercising, and planning together should increase trust and familiarity (Bitto,

2007; Lester & Krejci, 2007; Pilant, 1996).

4. In addition to continuing to train in all facets of NIMS and ICS

requirements, leaders and future leaders should receive leadership training

which should include transformational and transactional aspects of leadership.

Helping leaders understand their leadership style through use of the MLQ 5X-

short would be advantageous to leadership growth and development (Bass,

1998).

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations for

future research are offered.

1. This study should be replicated with a focus on several variables

including urban versus rural locations, formal supervisor versus non-supervisor

acting as incident commander, and paid professional fire fighters versus

volunteer fire fighters each as they pertain to leadership style and team

performance.

2. Further exploration should take place wherein a more focused analysis

may be undertaken within each incident instead of across disciplines as was

done. This will require fewer incidents but much more participation among all of

the incident commanders within a given incident. Likewise, such a methodology

would allow for the use of MLQ 5X-short subordinate, peer, and supervisors

ratings to be incorporated and evaluated.

146

3. Consideration should be given to use of a true experiment wherein a

control group is used. This would work best with new leaders wherein one group

received purposeful transformational leadership style training whereas the other

group did not.

4. Consideration should be given to using other multiple research

methodologies since multiple methods in researching leadership helps to reduce

methodological errors and increases the operational effectiveness and validity,

both internal and external of the study. Such methodologies should include more

qualitative and descriptive methods including observations, interviews, and

intensive case studies (Yukl, 1989). Likewise, replication of this study should be

considered in an effort to obtain a higher response rate.

5. Further exploration should take place regarding the use and or

prevalence of NIMS requirements focusing on ICS and UC in general. In

addition, the use of ICS should be compared to any specific correlations found to

a particular or dominant leadership style if one exists. Lester’s (2007) assertion

that it is recognized that ICS works best with firefighting organizations and is less

successful with police, public health, and public work-style agencies deserves

further exploration.

Conclusions

The results of this study add insight regarding the use of ICS and UC in

the Commonwealth of Virginia. The role leadership plays and whether a

particular style leadership is dominant when dealing with emergencies was

illustrated. Finally, a determination has been made as to the perceived

147

effectiveness of one style of leadership over another when dealing with

emergencies. Congruently, these answers will provide important information for

future incident commanders when working together with other agencies during

the response and recovery phases of emergencies.

The results of this research showed that the police and fire disciplines

used transformational style leadership most often, and transportation leaders

used transactional leadership most often. Fire/EMS and police dominant style

was Individualized Consideration, a transformational style. Transportation’s

dominant style was Contingent Reward, a transactional style. Further, the

dominant response regarding team performance was good or very good. The

results of this research showed that all agencies worked well together or better

than average in the great majority of incidents. The results of this research also

indicated that transportation appeared to play more of a support role in the vast

majority of incidents. Transportation leadership was active in a small number of

incidents.

148

REFERENCES

Aczel, A. D., & Sounderpandian, J. (2002). Complete business statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Ahn, M. J., Adamson, J. S. A., & Dornbusch, D. (2004, Spring). From leaders to

leadership: Managing change. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 112-124. Retrieved January 6, 2005, from Proquest database.

Allred, K. C. (2004, March/April). Coordinating incident response. Public Roads, 67(5), 7-12. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from ProQuest database. Alsabrook, C. L., Aryani, G. A., & Garrett, T. D. (2001, June). The five principles

of organizational excellence in police management. Law & Order, 49(6), 109-115. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from Proquest database.

Annelli, J. F. (2006). The national incident management system: A multi-agency

approach to emergency response in the United States of America. Rev. Scitech. Off. Int. Epiz., 25(1), 223-231.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295. Atwater, D. C., & Bass, B. M. (1994). Transformational leadership in teams. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp. 48-83). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Atwater, L.E. (1988, September). The relative importance of situational and

individual variables in predicting leader behavior: The surprising impact of subordinate trust. Group & Organization Studies, 13(3), 290-310. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from Proquest database.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of

transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. The British Psychological Society, 72, 441-462.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire, manual

and sampler (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Avolio, B. J., Sivasubramaniam, N., Murray, W. D., Jung, D., & Garger, J. W.

149

(2003). Assessing shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, (pp. 143-172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial application (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Bass, B. M. (1997, February). Does the transactional-transformational leadership

paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(2), 130-139.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates. Beck, J. D. W., & Yeager, N. M. (1996, Fall). How situational leadership fits into

today’s organizations. Supervisory Management, 41, 1-3. Retrieved April 25, 2006, from FirstSearch database.

Bennis, W. (1995). The artform of leadership. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader’s companion insights on leadership through the ages (2nd ed.), (pp.377- 378). New York, NY: The Free Press. Bigley, G. A., & Roberts, K. H. (2001, December). The incident command

system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Academy of Management, 44(6), 128-130. Retrieved August 12, 2006, from Proquest database.

Bitto, A. (2007, January/February). Say what? Me? Right here in the trenches? Collaborate on what? Seeking common ground in regional all-hazards preparedness training. Journal of Environmental Health, 69(6), 28-34. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Blanchard, K. H., & Hersey, P. (1996, January). Great ideas revisited. Training &

Development, 50(1), 42-48. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from Infotrac database.

Blank, W., Weitzel, J. R., & Green, S. G. (1990, Summer). A test of the situational leadership theory. Personnel Psychology, 43, 579-597. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from Proquest database.

Boin, A. B., & Hart, P. T. (2003, September/October). Public leadership in times of crisis: Mission impossible? Public Administration Review, 63(5), 544-

150

556. Retrieved April 25, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Boin, A., Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2005). The politics of crisis management public leadership under pressure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations artistry, choice, and

leadership (3rd ed.). San Fransico, CA: Wiley. Bono, J. E., & Llies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 317-334. Bourne, M. (2005, December). Need for NIMS. Fire Chief, 49(12), 46-53. Retrieved September 19, 2006, from http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_need_nims/index.html Brown, C. (2005, June). Backbone of NIMS. Fire Chief, 49(6), 38-42. Retrieved March 19, 2009, from ProQuest database. Brunacini, A. V. (1985). Fire command. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association. Bryman, A., & Stephens, M. (1996, Fall). The importance of context: Qualitative

research and the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 353-371. Retrieved January 6, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.

Buck, D. (2004, September-October). I-95 shutdown-coordinating transportation

and emergency response: emergency planning, unified command, and communication are key to managing a high-profile crash on I-95 near Baltimore, MD. Public Roads, 68(2), 42-52. Retrieved December 27, 2007,

from Findarticles database.

Buck, D. A., Trainor, J. E., & Aguirre, B. E. (2006). A critical evaluation of the incident command system and NIMS. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, (332), 1-27.

Buhler, P. (1993, March). The flip side of leadership – cultivating followers. Supervision, 54(3), 17-20. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from Proquest database. Bullock, J. A., Haddow, G. D., Coppola, D., Ergin, E., Westerman, L., & Yeletaysi,

S. (2006). Introduction to homeland security (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Elsevier.

Buntin, J. (2001, December). Disaster master. Governing, 15(3), 34-37.

151

Burkle, Jr., F. M., & Hayden, R. (2001, July-September). The concept of assisted management of large-scale disasters by horizontal organizations. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 16(3), 87-96.

Butler, Jr., J. K., & Reese, R. M. (1991, Summer). Leadership style and sales

performance: A test of the situational leadership model. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11(3), 37-46.

Canton, L. G. (2007). Emergency management concepts and strategies for

effective programs. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Cardwell, M. D., & Cooney, P. T. (2000, October). Nationwide application of the incident command system: Standardization is the key. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 69(10), 10-16. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Carlson, J. (1999, March). Critical incident management in the ultimate crisis. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 68(3), 19-22.

Champion, D. J. (2006). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Chen, J., & Silverthorne, C. (2005). Leadership effectiveness, leadership style and employee readiness. Leadership & Organization Development, 26(3/4), 280-289. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Choi, J. (2006). A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: Envisioning, empathy, and empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(1), 24-44. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from Proquest database.

Clements, C., & Washbush, J. B. (1999). The two faces of leadership: Considering the dark side of leader-follower dynamics. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(11), 170-179. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from Proquest database.

Collard, J. M. (2002, July/August). All leaders are not created equal. Commercial

Law Bulletin, 17(4), 8-11. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.

Comfort, L. K. (2002, Fall). Managing intergovernmental responses to terrorism and other extreme events. Publius, 32(4), 29-50. Retrieved June 11, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Connor, T. W. (1997, September). Incident command systems for law enforcement. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 66(9), 14-20. Retrieved February 16, 2008, from ProQuest database.

152

Cooper, C., & Block, R. (2006). Disaster hurricane katrina and the failure of homeland security. New York, NY: Times Books.

Covey, S. R. (1992). Principle centered leadership. New York, NY: Simon &

Schuster. Corbin, J., Vasconez, K. C., & Helman, D. (2007, September/October). Unifying incident response. Public Roads, 71(2), 23-30. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from ProQuest database. Densten, I. L. (2003). Senior police leadership: Does rank matter. Policing,

26(3), 400. Retrieved January 6, 2006, from Proquest database. Dessler, G. (2001). Management leading people in organizations in the 21st century (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dixon, D. D. (2006, February). Hurricane Rita: Lessons learned. The Police

Chief, 73(2). Retrieved May 27, 2006, from http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=809&issue_id=22006

Ensby, M. (2005). Quality leadership situational style. ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement Proceedings, 59, 341-347. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the

role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659-676.

Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(1), 1-11.

Fisher, Jr., J. R. (2005, October). Leaders at a loss. Leadership Excellence,

22(10), 13-15. Retrieved June 11, 2006, from ProQuest database. Flin, R (1996). Sitting in the hot seat leaders and teams for critical incident

management. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Fyfe, J. J., Greene, J. R., Walsh, W. F., Wilson, O. W., & McLaren, R. C. (1997).

Police administration (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Gabris, G. T. (2004, Summer). Developing public managers into credible public leaders: Theory and practical implications. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 7(2), 209-331. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from ProQuest database.

153

Garcia, H. G. (2006). Effective leadership response to crisis. Strategy & Leadership, 34(1), 4-10. Retrieved March 23, 2007, from Proquest database.

Gehl, A. R. (2004, October). Multiagency teams: A leadership challenge. The Police Chief, 71(10). Retrieved September 19, 2006, from http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=422&issue_id=102004

Goodson, J. R., McGee, G. W., & Cashman, J. F. (1989, December). Situational leadership theory: A test of leadership prescriptions. Group & Organizational Studies, 14(4), 446-462. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from Proquest database.

Greene, C. N. (1979, March). Questions of causation in the path-goal theory of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 22-41.

Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent

research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-339.

Hagan, F. E. (2006). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Hanneman, D. (2006, March). Collaborative response. Fire Chief, 50(3), 38-40. Retrieved March 19, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Hansen, P. (1991, October). Developing police leadership. FBI Law Enforcement

Bulletin, 60(10), 4-8. Retrieved January 27, 2006, from Proquest database.

Helman, D. L. (2004, November-December). Traffic incident management. Public Roads, 68(3), 14-22. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from Findarticles

database. Herron, S. M. (2004, November). The national incident management system. The

Police Chief, 71(11). Retrieved May 27, 2007, from http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=444&issue_id=112004

Hilgenfeldt, K. (2001, November). Where have all the leaders gone? Law & Order, 49(11), 117. Retrieved January 6, 2007, from Proquest database.

Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 509-522.

154

Hopkins, W. G. (2007). A new view of statistics: A scale of magnitudes for effect statistics. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html:

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership:

Quo Vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-482. Howard, W. C. (2005, Winter). Leadership: fours styles. Education, 126(2), 384-

392. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from InfoTrac database.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.

Howitt, A. M. (2004, November 15). Crisis management: Exercising leadership in

extraordinary times. Nation’s Cities Weekly, 27(46), 8. Retrieved April 26, 2006, from InfoTrac database.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (1995). Power, influence, and influence tactics. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader’s companion insights on leadership through the ages (2nd ed.), (pp. 339-351). New York, NY: The Free Press. Hunter, D. (2006, September). Leadership resilience and tolerance for ambiguity

in crisis situations. The Business Review, 5(1), 44-50. Retrieved March 23, 2007, from Proquest database.

Iannone, N. F. (1987). Supervision of police personnel (4th ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ijames, S. (2005, January/February). Leadership tips for team unity. Tactical Response, 5(1). Retrieved March 20, 2009, from ProQuest database. In praise of followers. (1992, September). Psychology Today, 36(5), 10. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from Proquest database. Jamieson, G. (2005, February). NIMS and the incident command system. The

Police Chief, 72(2). Retrieved May 27, 2007, from http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=517&issue_id=22005

Jermier, J. M. (1996, Fall). The path-goal theory of leadership: A subtextual analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 311-317. Retrieved August 5, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.

155

Jones, H. B. (2001, June). Magic, meaning and leadership: Weber’s model and the empirical literature. Human Relations, 54(6), 753-771.

Jordan, D. J. (1998). Leadership: The state of research – results of leadership

research. Parks & Recreation. Retrieved May 21, 2007, from FindArticles database.

Jung, D., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33(3), 313-336. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from FirstSearch database. Justis, R. T. (1975, March). Leadership effectiveness, a contingency approach.

Academy of Management Journal, 18(1), 160-167. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from Proquest database.

Kappeler, V. E. (1995). The police and society: Touchstone readings. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 77-89. Kemp, R. L. (2004, May). Homeland security: Suggestions from the best practices in america. Contemporary Review, 284(1660), 257-264. King III, G. (2002, December). Crisis management & team effectiveness: A

closer examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(3), 235-250. Retrieved June 11, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Klann, G. (2003). Crisis leadership using military lessons, organizational

experiences and the power of influence to lessen the impact of chaos on the people you lead. Greensboro, NC: CCL Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San

Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lennartsson, K. (2006, January). Emergency memo: Collaborate in a crisis. Security, 43(1), 44-48. Retrieved May 26, 2007, from Proquest database.

Lester, W. (2007, Fall). Transformational leadership and NIMS. Public Manager, 36(3), 11-17. Retrieved March 16, 2009, from Proquest database. Lester, W., & Krejci, D. (2007, December). Business “Not” as usual: The national incident management system, federalism, and leadership. Public

156

Administration Review, 67, 84-94. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from ProQuest database. Lewis, P. S., Goodman, S. H., & Fandt, P. M. (1998). Challenges in the 21st Century Management (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. Lievens, F., Geit, P. V., & Coetsier, P. (1997). Identification of transformational

leadership qualities: An examination of potential biases. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 415-430.

Lindell, M. K., Prater, C., & Perry, R. W. (2007). Introduction to emergency management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Maccoby, M. (2000, January/February). Understanding the difference between management and leadership. Research Technology Management, 43(1), 57-59.

MaCorr Research Solutions Online. (n.d.). Retrieved January 11, 2008, from

http://www.macorr.com/index.htm

Martin, R. (2007, August). Battle-proven military principles for disaster leadership. Fire Engineering, 160(8), 69-89.

Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. (1998). Research methods for criminal justice and

criminology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Maxwell, J. G. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers. McCreight, R., & Hagen, J. (2007, May). Strategic aspects of emergency

management: Examining incident command issues, problems of coordination and importance of capturing lessons learned. Homeland Defense Journal, 5(5), 22-28.

McLean, J. (2005, October/November). Management and leadership dispelling

the myths. The British Journal of Administrative Management, 16. Meese, E. III, & Ortmeier, P. J. (2004). Leadership, ethics, and policing. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Miller, L. (2006, October). Psychological principles and practices for superior law enforcement leadership. The Police Chief, 73(10). Retrieved April 25, 2006, from ProQuest database.

157

Miller, T. (2007, January). All together now: The national incident management system is unifying multi-agency emergency response. American City & County, 122(1), 34-37. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from FirstSearch database. Mirsalimi, H., & Hunter, M. (2006, August). Influential leadership. Rough Notes, 149(8), 76-79. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from Proquest database. Mitroff, I. I. (2004). Crisis leadership: Planning for the unthinkable. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Mitroff, I. I. (2005, October). Crisis leadership. Leadership Excellence, 22(10), 11.

Retrieved April 25, 2006, from ProQuest database. Molino, Sr., L. N. (2006). Emergency incident management systems. Hoboken,

NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Moran, L., Perrin, C., & Blauth, C. (2005, Winter). Getting real: The need for

genuine leaders. The Catalyst, 34(3), 7-12. Retrieved June 11, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Morreale, S. A., & Ortmeier, P. J. (2004, October). Preparing leaders for law enforcement. The Police Chief, 71(10). Retrieved April 25, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Murgallis, R. P. (2005, July/August). Performance under fire. Harvard Business Review, 83(7/8), 44-45. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from EBSCOhost database. Nicholson, W. C. (2003). Emergency response and emergency management law.

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ohman, K. A. (2000, January/February). The transformational leadership of critical care nurse-managers. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 19(1), 46-54. Retrieved March 23, 2007, from Proquest database.

Oldham, S. (2003, June). Are you leading? Law & Order, 51(6), 136. Retrieved

January 27, 2007, from Proquest database. O’Neill, B. (2008. July). Acting to coordinate emergency management. Public Management, 90(6), 33-35. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from FirstSearch database.

158

Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 22(1). Retrieved March 23, 2007, from Proquest database.

Perry, R. W. (2003). Incident management systems in disaster management.

Disaster Prevention and Management, 12(5), 405-413. Retrieved June 11, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Perkel, S. E. (2005, June). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Consulting to Management, 16(2), 59-62. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from Proquest database. Phillips, L. (1999, November/December). Incident command: A powerful safety tool for the nation’s highways. Traffic Safety, 99(6). Retrieved May 27, 2006, from ProQuest database. Phills, Jr., J. A. (2005, Spring). Leadership matters-or does it. Leader to Leader, 36, 46. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from Proquest database. Pilant, L. (1996, February). Critical incident management. The Police Chief, 63(2). Retrieved February 16, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Ahearne, M., & Bommer, W. H. (1995, Fall).

Searching for a needle in a haystack: Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 21(3), 423-471. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from InfoTrac database.

Reardon, J. A. (2005, August). Unified command and shifting priorities. Fire

Engineering, 158(8), 75-78.

Riggio, R. E., Bass, B. M., & Orr, S. S. (2004). Transformational leadership in nonprofit organizations. In R. E. Riggio & S. S. Orr (Eds.), Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations (pp. 49-62). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rosenthal, U. (2003, May). September 11: Public administration and the study of

crises and crisis management. Administration & Society, 35(2), 129-138. Retrieved June 11, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Rowold, J. (2005). Multifactor leadership questionnaire, psychometric properties of the German translation by Jen Rowold. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Ruff, G. W. (2000, January). Using routine incidents to develop effective incident command system skill. The Police Chief, 67(1). Retrieved February 16, 2008, from ProQuest database.

159

Sapriel, C. (2003, February). Effective crisis management: Tools and best practice for the new millennium. Journal of Communication Management, 7(4), 348-356. Retrieved June 11, 2007, from Proquest database.

Schoenberg, A. (2005, Spring). Do crisis plans matter? A new perspective on leading during a crisis. Public Relations Quarterly, 50(1), 2-7. Retrieved June 11, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Slahor, S. (1999, July). Ethical leadership. Law & Order, 47(7), 123-125.

Retrieved November 6, 2007, from Proquest database.

Smallwood, N., & Seemann, P. (2003, December). Leading in times of crisis. Executive Excellence, 20(12), 7-9. Retrieved April 25, 2007, from Proquest database.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004, Spring).

Transformational and servant leadership: content and contextual comparison. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-92. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from InfoTrac database.

Smits, S. J., & Ally, N. E. (2003, Winter/Spring). “Thinking the unthinkable” –

Leadership’s role in creating behavioral readiness for crisis management. American Society for Competitiveness, 13(1), 1-23. Retrieved April 26, 2006, from InfoTrac database.

StatSoft. (n.d.). Power Analysis. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stpowan.html#index:

Staveley, S. (2002). Taking a closer look at leadership. Journal of California Law

Enforcement, 36(1), 18-26. Retrieved January 6, 2007, from Proquest database

Stephan, E., & Pace, R. W. (1991, January). Five keys to effective leadership. Executive Excellence, 8(1), 7-9. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from Proquest database. Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership for self-managing work teams:

A typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48(7), 747-770.

SPSS. (2000). What does Cronbach’s alpha mean? Retrieved April 14, 2007 from http://ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/faq/alpha.html

Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organizational Development, 25(3/4), 349-359. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Proquest database.

160

Tabachnik, B., Fidell, L., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon. Torpman, J. (2004). The differentiating function of modern forms of leadership.

Management Decision, 42(7/8), 892-906. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from Proquest database.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2005). Research methods the concise knowledge base.

Cincinnati, OH: Atomicdog.

Tucker, B. A., & Russell, R. F. (2004, Spring). The influence of the transformational leader. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 103-112. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from InfoTrac database.

United States Government Printing Office. (2004). The 9/11 commission report:

the final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05aug20041050/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf#search='The%209%2F11%20Commission%20Report

Van Auken, P. M. (1992, Winter). Leading in four arenas. American Society for

Competitiveness, 20(1), 14-16. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from InfoTrac database.

Waldman, D. A. (1994). Transformational leadership in multifunctional teams. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp. 84-103). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Walsh, D. W., Christen, H. T., Miller, G. T., Callsen, C. E., Cilluffo, F. J., &

Maniscalco, P. M. (2005). National incident management system principles and practices. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Waugh, Jr., W. L., & Streib, G. (2006, December). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Administration Review, 66, 131-140.

Weiss, R. P. (2002, March). Crisis leadership: Since September 11, business

leaders have been reassessing how well prepared they are to lead. Training & Development, 56(3), 28-35. Retrieved April 26, 2006, from InfoTrac database.

Wise, C. R., & Nader, R. (2002, September). Organizing the federal system for homeland security: Problems, issues, and dilemmas. Public Administration Review, 62(S), 44-57.

161

Wofford, J. C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Path-Goal theories of leadership: A meta- analysis. Journal of Management,19(4), 857-876.

Wren, J. T. (1995). The leader’s companion. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Wuestewald, T., & Steinheider, B. (2006, January). Shared leadership: Can

empowerment work in police organizations? The Police Chief, 73(1), 48- 55.

Yagil, D. (2002). Substitution of a leader’s power bases by contextual variables. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 5(3/4), 383- 399.

Yemm, G. (2006, June 27). Leadership – Do you use or abuse power? Retrieved August 3, 2009, from

http://ezinearticles.com/?Leadership- %E2%80%93-Do-You-Use-or- Abuse-Power?&id=230287

Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251-289.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Education. Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership

behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15-32.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The

Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451-483.

Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business research methods (7th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

APPENDIXES

163

Appendix A

Initial Data Collection Interview Form

164

Crash # Crash Date: County/City Crash Location:

Investigators Name: Investigating Agency:

Investigators office #: Cell #:

Investigators email:

Was there a fatality? Yes No (If no stop)

How many fatalities? _________ How many injured? _________

How many vehicles? ______ How many CMVs? ________ (If none stop)

Was the highway closed? Yes No How long was it closed? _________ hours

Was a unified command used? Yes No (If no to both of these stop)

Were there at least two agencies leaders working together? Yes No

Fire/EMS leader (IC) – Name

Agency

Office phone

Cell phone

Email

Were you part of a unified command (did you and any other leader work together on this crash)? Yes No Would you be willing to participate in a leadership study? Yes No Contact date: ______________

Police leader (IC) – Name

Agency

Office phone

Cell phone

Email

Were you part of a unified command (did you and any other leader work together on this crash)? Yes No Would you be willing to participate in a leadership study? Yes No Contact date: ______________

Transportation (IC) – Name

Agency

Office phone

Cell phone

Email

Were you part of a unified command (did you and any other leader work together on this crash)? Yes No Would you be willing to participate in a leadership study? Yes No Contact date: ______________

Other leader (IC) – Name Agency

Office phone

Cell phone

Email

Were you part of a unified command (did you and any other leader work together on this crash? Yes No Would you be willing to participate in a leadership study? Yes No Contact date: ______________

Other comments:

Crash number assigned for evaluation #

165

Appendix B

Informed Consent Form

166

1. INFORMED CONSENT FORM Dear Incident Commander Participant, I am a doctoral candidate at Northcentral University in Prescott, Arizona who is currently conducting research on incident commander leadership styles. At the completion of my matriculation, I expect to be awarded a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. D.) in Business Administration with a specialization in Homeland Security. The purpose of this dissertation study is to research, analyze, and compare the leadership styles of incident commanders while engaged in a unified command during response, mitigation, and recovery of major traffic crashes in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Participation in this study is voluntary, and strict confidentiality will be maintained. Your participation will involve an online survey interview process that is expected to take approximately 30 minutes to complete. You may choose not to participate and/or withdraw from the study at any time. In this research, there are no foreseeable risks to you. There will be no costs associated with your participation in this study. Although there may be no direct benefit to you, the possible benefit of your participation is that the research is expected to contribute significantly to the study of leadership issues for the emergency response community and to society as a whole. Please feel free to ask questions regarding this study. You are welcome to contact Jeffrey C. Fox, the Principal Researcher, with questions at (540) 489-7423 or cell at (540) 4207423 or e-mail: jcfpdf@msn.com. SIGNATURES: Kindly respond to the Agree/Disagree to participate question below. Thank you. Researcher’s Name: Jeffrey C. Fox, Northcentral University I have read the above description of the dissertation study and understand the conditions of my participation.

1. Consent Authorization

O Agree O Disagree

167

Appendix C

Cover Letter / Instructions

168

1. INTRODUCTION Thank you for participating in my doctoral dissertation research survey. This survey is not affiliated with, or sponsored by, any public or private organization. Once I have completed my dissertation, I will provide an e-mail address for participants to contact if you would like to receive an electronic version of the research results. Again, thank you for your participation. Gratefully, Jeff Fox

2. INSTRUCTIONS Two surveys will be used to collect research data. Part 1 is a short survey wherein you would provide demographic data and several perception responses. Part 2 is a survey instrument called the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). This part of the survey may require up to three surveys being completed. The surveys contain the same questions. One survey will be completed wherein you will answer questions about yourself as they specifically relate to the incident under examination. The other surveys will be completed regarding your perception of the other incident commanders who worked with you in the unified command process.

ALL SURVEYS ARE COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL On the following pages, you will find a series of descriptive terms. Some of these terms are positive in connotation, others are negative, and some are neither positive nor negative.

Please respond to each question to the best of your ability. Please do not leave any portion blank. Answers should be completely based on the interactions, which took place only during the management of the incident in question.

ANSWER FORMAT EXAMPLE – Ratings on INCIDENT COMMANDERS IN GENERAL

O Fire/EMS O Police O Transportation/Public Works O Other

169

Appendix D

Incident Commander Form of the Descriptive Index

170ALL SURVEYS ARE COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL

On the following pages, you will find a series of descriptive terms used to characterize you and your perception of the specific incident being studied. Some of these terms are positive in connotation, others are negative, and some are neutral.

This is part one of a two part survey. For each of these responses please answer based on the specific circumstances that took place during the incident (motor vehicle crash) in question.

Code This section contains identifying information regarding the motor vehicle crash response/investigation/recovery that you took part in as an incident commander for your agency. County/City:

Date:

Investigating Officer:

Primary Fire/EMS Agency Leader:

Primary Police Agency Leader:

Primary Transportation/Public Works Agency Leader:

Other Legal/Functional Primary Agency Leader:

If a name is left blank or incorrect please feel free to correct or fill in the name. If you were not the incident commander/person in charge for your agency at the scene of the crash in question would you be so kind as to either give this to the proper person or return this to me with his or her contact information. The preliminary investigation of this crash revealed that you were the incident commander/person in charge for your respective agency. Likewise, it was determined that a unified command was used and/or a team effort was undertaken between participating agencies at the scene.

171

Section 1: Survey Questions

1. Organization Type

O Fire/EMS O Police O Transportation/Public works O Other

2. Individual Level of Experience as an Incident Commander in a Unified Command

O 0-5 Incidents O 6-10 Incidents O 11-15 Incidents O 16-20 Incidents O 21-Plus Incidents

3. Incident Difficulty (Complexity)

O Not Difficult O Slightly Difficult O Difficult O Very Difficult O Extremely Difficult

Guidance: For incident difficulty (complexity), this response is based on your perception alone. Please be guided by the following criteria: Not Difficult would mean that everything went as well as it could. There were no unique challenges, the situation itself required minimal responding agency resources, and the stress level was very low. At the other end of the spectrum would be Extremely Difficult. This would mean that the incident was very much out of the ordinary and might include a hazardous material release with evacuation, injuries to responders, multiple fatalities or injuries with entrapment. There might be tremendous media attention and political pressure to reopen the highway quickly. An extended highway closure would be likely and the stress level high. Please consider this answer based only on the crash under examination.

4. Team/Unit (Unified Command) Performance

O Very poor O Poor O Average/Acceptable O Good O Very good

Guidance: For team/unit performance, this response is based on your perception alone. Please base your answer on the entire incident and considering the entire unified command team (not individuals alone). Only consider the aggregate performance of the incident commanders and not the followers or subordinate responders. Please consider this answer based only on the crash under examination.

This concludes part 1 of the survey. Part 2 will consist of completing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) which I will need to email you. When you receive the MLQ please complete each document fully. The results are confidential.

172

Please provide me with the email address which will be capable of receiving the questionnaire(s). Please note the official Virginia State Government email address may not have the character capacity to receive the questionnaire. Email: _____________________________ Best phone number to be reached for questions: _______________________ Within the coming weeks you will receive an email which will be the electronic survey. The email will come from invite@mindgarden.com.

THANK YOU Sincerely, Jeff Fox

173Appendix E

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaires (MLQ 5X-short)

174The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 5X-short is Copyrighted ©

1995 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio. All rights reserved. To purchase the

MLQ contact Mind Garden at www.mindgarden.com.